Federal Government to Mandate Speed Control?

[vdeane]

There's a chance the federal government could mandate speed limiting tech is new cars, potentially including GPS comparison to databases, including Google Maps.  Big Brother, much?  I certainly don't want a GPS in my car tracking my every move.  And given how Google Maps is, I question the reliability of their speed limit data.  And if they have that data, why don't their drive times match the speed limit?  Many areas out west have directions take longer even though traffic is free flowing, and out east the directions actually assume that you speed by a few mph.

https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/16/ntsb-speed-reduction-tech-in-every-new-car/

[algorerhythms]

If you have a car more recent than about 2015 or so there is already a GPS tracking everywhere you drive. And that's not even to mention your cell phone.

[J N Winkler]

I think the key is the extent to which a driver will be able to disable the technology as needed to take full control and overcome problems with GPS accuracy (e.g., the system trying to force 30 MPH on a freeway because that is the speed limit on the adjacent frontage road).  This technology is not new--I rented a UK-spec Mercedes almost 20 years ago that, instead of cruise control, had a speed limiter (if engaged, the throttle pedal felt like it had more spring resistance, and the car would not accelerate to more than 5 MPH under the speed limit).

[vdeane]

I think the key is the extent to which a driver will be able to disable the technology as needed to take full control and overcome problems with GPS accuracy (e.g., the system trying to force 30 MPH on a freeway because that is the speed limit on the adjacent frontage road).  This technology is not new--I rented a UK-spec Mercedes almost 20 years ago that, instead of cruise control, had a speed limiter (if engaged, the throttle pedal felt like it had more spring resistance, and the car would not accelerate to more than 5 MPH under the speed limit).

If they're trying to mandate it, I'm guessing that it will be like things like engine stop when at a light, and at best you'll have to disable it each and every trip.

If you have a car more recent than about 2015 or so there is already a GPS tracking everywhere you drive. And that's not even to mention your cell phone.

Yeah, my car is a 2014 Civic LX (so the bottom model) manual transmission.  One of the things I like about Honda is that they tend to be behind the curve on the trend of turning cars into computers on wheels, although unfortunately even they seem to be getting on board with that trend as of the latest models.

I don't like how people use cell phones as an excuse to abandon all forms of privacy in all other aspects of life.  One key difference is that cell phones need some ability to be located just to work in the first place.  Cars don't.  Plus cell phones can be turned off.  Mine even allows removing the battery.  I also don't keep things like Google Maps open all the time, and during COVID I even had location services turned off unless I specifically needed them in a given moment.  And honestly, there are reasons why I've been considering abandoning Android in favor of a true Linux phone (assuming I can make one work with my cell network).  Too bad it's not possible to do that with a car...

[Scott5114]

I always turn location services off unless I'm actively using them for something. Even beyond the privacy implications, it makes the battery last far longer.

[SP Cook]

- Not all politicians support the "American dream" lifestyle of suburban car based personal freedom.  Many want you to live like your great grandparents did.  In urban slums, bound to communal transit, and, quite frankly, some don't want you to travel from region to region.  Making car ownership less pleasant and more expensive is a part of that.

- Speed limits do not save lives.  Its all about MONEY.  The last thing traffic cops and the corrupt jurisdictions that employ them want is 100% compliance.  Because its all about MONEY.

[thspfc]

- Speed limits do not save lives.

You know this how?

[SP Cook]

You know this how?

History and science.  When the NMSL was first partially and then fully repealed, Big Insurance, the courthouse/police cabal, and useful idiots (mostly named Karen) spewed idiocy about the coming catastrophe.  And, as predicted by those of us who knew better, traffic mortality and morbidity went D O W N.  We were right and they were wrong.  And as SLs continue to be wisely increased across the country, especially in the west, they continue to go down.

Because its about M O N E Y and P O W E R.  Always has been

Raise the speed limit.  Save lives, cut Big Insurance out of unjustified rate hikes, and free the police for serious useful work.

[mgk920]

You know this how?

History and science.  When the NMSL was first partially and then fully repealed, Big Insurance, the courthouse/police cabal, and useful idiots (mostly named Karen) spewed idiocy about the coming catastrophe.  And, as predicted by those of us who knew better, traffic mortality and morbidity went D O W N.  We were right and they were wrong.  And as SLs continue to be wisely increased across the country, especially in the west, they continue to go down.

Because its about M O N E Y and P O W E R.  Always has been

Raise the speed limit.  Save lives, cut Big Insurance out of unjustified rate hikes, and free the police for serious useful work.

Safety statistics on the 'unlimited' parts of Germany's autobahn network.

Mike

[Bruce]

- Not all politicians support the "American dream" lifestyle of suburban car based personal freedom.  Many want you to live like your great grandparents did.  In urban slums, bound to communal transit, and, quite frankly, some don't want you to travel from region to region.  Making car ownership less pleasant and more expensive is a part of that.

- Speed limits do not save lives.  Its all about MONEY.  The last thing traffic cops and the corrupt jurisdictions that employ them want is 100% compliance.  Because its all about MONEY.

Nothing like conspiracy theory bullshit to wake up to in the morning. The concept of "15-minute cities", which have become the boogeyman for certain circles, does not mean one cannot leave their fucking cities. It simply means putting services closer to where people live and allowing them the choice (actual freedom) of whether to drive or use another mode.

Speed limits are 100% necessary. Ever seen a high-speed crash? The amount of compressed flesh that results from someone going 100 mph and going out of control is horrific. We're heading towards a future of speed governors because our drivers can't be trusted not to endanger other people with their vehicles all to save 0.00000001% of the drive time.

[vdeane]

- Not all politicians support the "American dream" lifestyle of suburban car based personal freedom.  Many want you to live like your great grandparents did.  In urban slums, bound to communal transit, and, quite frankly, some don't want you to travel from region to region.  Making car ownership less pleasant and more expensive is a part of that.

- Speed limits do not save lives.  Its all about MONEY.  The last thing traffic cops and the corrupt jurisdictions that employ them want is 100% compliance.  Because its all about MONEY.

Nothing like conspiracy theory bullshit to wake up to in the morning. The concept of "15-minute cities", which have become the boogeyman for certain circles, does not mean one cannot leave their fucking cities. It simply means putting services closer to where people live and allowing them the choice (actual freedom) of whether to drive or use another mode.

Speed limits are 100% necessary. Ever seen a high-speed crash? The amount of compressed flesh that results from someone going 100 mph and going out of control is horrific. We're heading towards a future of speed governors because our drivers can't be trusted not to endanger other people with their vehicles all to save 0.00000001% of the drive time.

How does the number on the sign affect the person going 100 mph in any way?  It doesn't.  Germany also has several sections of derestricted autobahn that have no speed limit and it works fine for them.  The problem is reckless driving, not speeding.

And while I agree that the whole "15 minute city" thing has become a conspiracy theory in certain circles, I think SP Cook hit the nail on the head with respect to radical Urbanism overall.  Even if there is no actual push to legally or physically restrict movement, the movement is very much organized around the idea of doing things locally rather than gallivanting around long distances on a car whenever just because you can.  I can't imagine the idea of roadgeeks going out on a drive to clinch routes or just for the sake of driving would win over fans on places like r/fuckcars, for instance; they would probably just rant about how we're contributing to VMT without even the excuse of land use patterns necessitating us doing so.

I support making other modes more accessible, however I am very much against making car travel inconvenient to incentivize people to switch modes.  I refused to believe that having a good experience for cars and a good experience for everyone else is mutually exclusive.

[DriverDave]

This would never pass in many US states, and if it did, the tuners would have alot of business again removing this stuff out of people's cars. How would it even be enforced? How would they know if you tampered with the system? Not to mention many people would simply just not buy new cars and keep their existing one for much longer. Who would want to buy a new car to submit to this nonsense? I doubt they would be able to enforce this on millions of drivers.

[vdeane]

This would never pass in many US states, and if it did, the tuners would have alot of business again removing this stuff out of people's cars. How would it even be enforced? How would they know if you tampered with the system? Not to mention many people would simply just not buy new cars and keep their existing one for much longer. Who would want to buy a new car to submit to this nonsense? I doubt they would be able to enforce this on millions of drivers.

I would imagine that speeding could be used as probable cause to investigate tampering.  I also imagine it would be marketed as "driver assistance", like emergency braking and lane keeping assist.

[kalvado]

Doesn't need much support from states. Cars are certified federally, once the speed limiter is a certification requirement - end of story. And it can be an addenum to some must-pass budget legislation, of course (Clearview). Requires strong support from some high-power politicians, who may not want to risk becoming unpopular.
One thing that may happen to counterbalance the situation is an increase of some speed limits, mostly highway - as there is an understanding that those speed limits are followed as N+10 at best. Keeping street speeds more in check may actually be not that bad - again, if speed limits are not seen as a punitive instrument.

Encoding the limit into the main car computer may be hard to bypass. It may be possible to cut off speed limit input into the thing. Defaulting to, say, 55MPH would make such cut off meaningless.

[DriverDave]

Doesn't mean most people would willingly just bring their cars in to be altered like that. Unless they sent some agency around scanning people's tags to see if they complied. Luckily garages exist. Raising speed limits to something reasonable to begin with would eliminate the "problem" of the majority of drivers speeding. Even if it were implemented federally, states against it could still make it very difficult to enforce. Just like they did with the NMSL 55 mph, refusing to report violations to insurance companies for example or setting the fines at $10 with no points unless you were exceeding the previous speed limit..etc. It's one thing to enforce people actively committing traffic/parking violations. It's another to try to force something the majority would be against on tens of millions of drivers. Many cops/mechanics would likely look the other way, and I doubt the Supreme Court would approve, as it could violate certain personal property/privacy laws. And if such a system were over-rideable anyway, it's no more useful than cruise control, and if it wasn't over-rideable, it would be lawsuit city when it fails and forcibly slows a car down to 30 mph on a freeway or impedes emergency travel/cutting power while overtaking

[MikeTheActuary]

it would be lawsuit city when it fails and forcibly slows a car down to 30 mph on a freeway or impedes emergency travel/cutting power while overtaking

"They" will need to provide some safe harbor for manufacturers to protect them from liability, or this will be a big mess.

Of course, such safe harbor will require legislation...and given the current nature of politics in the US, I think that's unlikely to happen.

That reminds me...I need to replace my car in the next couple of years, before onboard breathalyzers become mandatory.  I don't drink, so I'm not at all concerned about that aspect of the gadgetry; but I'd rather not have more tech that will render the car inoperative when it inevitably fails.

[Scott5114]

D O W N.

Because its about M O N E Y and P O W E R.  Always has been

and M A K I N G Y O U R P O S T S S O U N D D U M B W I T H T E X T T O S P E E C H

[Dirt Roads]

There's a chance the federal government could mandate speed limiting tech is new cars, potentially including GPS comparison to databases, including Google Maps.  Big Brother, much?  I certainly don't want a GPS in my car tracking my every move.  And given how Google Maps is, I question the reliability of their speed limit data.  And if they have that data, why don't their drive times match the speed limit?  Many areas out west have directions take longer even though traffic is free flowing, and out east the directions actually assume that you speed by a few mph.

https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/16/ntsb-speed-reduction-tech-in-every-new-car/

NTSB, of course, is focused on safety and outcomes (and in many cases, transportation safety become closely connected to enforcement and compliance).  In the mountains of West Virginia, we have folks driving 45MPH unsafely with potential outcomes almost as bad as the 103MPH driver that [intentionally] failed to comply with a stop sign in Las Vegas.  None of my GPS system have accurate speed limit databases, as they have never been updated.  But the Intelligent Speed-Assist technology (ISA) would be a "centralized" system and not require that your car contain an accurate speed limit database ("decentralized system"). 

My experience with speed control is in a railroading/rail transit environment, and (not surprisingly) there has been a great deal of reluctance in our industry to adapt and the arguments for/against are similar to those expressed here.  Here's a different take based on the issues from railroads/rail transit systems:

1.  Speed control and "overspeed" enforcement work independently of each other.  Once an "overspeed" condition is detected, there will typically be a function that removes the "throttle" and after a short period of time, starts to blend in the brakes if the "overspeed" condition still exists.  Then there is a second level of "overspeed" that assumes a critical failure has occurred (but not necessarily detected) and applies emergency brakes until the vehicles comes to a complete stop.  These are particular difficult to properly control/enforce when a vehicle has been "throttling up" to overcome the affect of gravity upgrade and you encounter a speed limit reduction at the "top of the hill".

2.  Folks will tolerate the enforced speed reduction due to an "overspeed" condition.  But everybody hates the consequences of an "emergency brake" application.  I can imagine that stopping a car doing 85MPH in [free flow] rush hour traffic will cause a backup similar to a nasty accident, even if we can make the "emergency brake" application nice and smooth such that the safety of the following vehicle is not compromised.

3.  We are used to newer versions of "cruise control" that can closely maintain the programmed velocity target.  But manual driving and certain failure modes indeed make it common to trigger the "overspeed" condition, and it can be difficult to avoid the "penalty brake" application.  Worse, it is always complicated to switch from "penalty braking" to "resume speed", and even with today's level of control the "accordion affect" in rush hour traffic is going to be an issue.

None of this is capable of addressing the most common speed-related safety issues, whereby a driver intentionally wants to control their vehicle in a manner that is unsafe to other drivers (ergo, improperly entering the "conflict zone" in intersections and merge paths).  Thusly, the railroading/rail transit industries have focused most of their safety efforts on "conflict zones" (which we call "interlockings").  Furthermore, the airline industry is almost totally focused on this, being more concerned about "underspeed" than "overspeed".

[JayhawkCO]

- Not all politicians support the "American dream" lifestyle of suburban car based personal freedom.  Many want you to live like your great grandparents did.  In urban slums, bound to communal transit, and, quite frankly, some don't want you to travel from region to region.  Making car ownership less pleasant and more expensive is a part of that.

- Speed limits do not save lives.  Its all about MONEY.  The last thing traffic cops and the corrupt jurisdictions that employ them want is 100% compliance.  Because its all about MONEY.

Nothing like conspiracy theory bullshit to wake up to in the morning. The concept of "15-minute cities", which have become the boogeyman for certain circles, does not mean one cannot leave their fucking cities. It simply means putting services closer to where people live and allowing them the choice (actual freedom) of whether to drive or use another mode.

Speed limits are 100% necessary. Ever seen a high-speed crash? The amount of compressed flesh that results from someone going 100 mph and going out of control is horrific. We're heading towards a future of speed governors because our drivers can't be trusted not to endanger other people with their vehicles all to save 0.00000001% of the drive time.

How does the number on the sign affect the person going 100 mph in any way?  It doesn't.  Germany also has several sections of derestricted autobahn that have no speed limit and it works fine for them.  The problem is reckless driving, not speeding.

The number on the sign 100% affects the person driving 100 mph, because the other people on the road aren't expecting a car to be travelling at 100mph there, whereas on the Autobahn, it's expected. It's more dangerous for the driver of the 100mph car and the speed limit cars both.

I'm 100% in favor of having prevention from travelling 100 mph on cars sold in the US. There is no reason to be able to go that fast outside of sanctioned racing, and there could be special grants approved for street legal cars involved in that.

[Max Rockatansky]

D O W N.

Because its about M O N E Y and P O W E R.  Always has been

and M A K I N G Y O U R P O S T S S O U N D D U M B W I T H T E X T T O S P E E C H

Maybe he's taking inspiration from Tony Montana?

[hbelkins]

There was a kerfuffle over the mandating of a kill switch last week.

[DriverDave]

There's a chance the federal government could mandate speed limiting tech is new cars, potentially including GPS comparison to databases, including Google Maps.  Big Brother, much?  I certainly don't want a GPS in my car tracking my every move.  And given how Google Maps is, I question the reliability of their speed limit data.  And if they have that data, why don't their drive times match the speed limit?  Many areas out west have directions take longer even though traffic is free flowing, and out east the directions actually assume that you speed by a few mph.

https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/16/ntsb-speed-reduction-tech-in-every-new-car/

NTSB, of course, is focused on safety and outcomes (and in many cases, transportation safety become closely connected to enforcement and compliance).  In the mountains of West Virginia, we have folks driving 45MPH unsafely with potential outcomes almost as bad as the 103MPH driver that [intentionally] failed to comply with a stop sign in Las Vegas.  None of my GPS system have accurate speed limit databases, as they have never been updated.  But the Intelligent Speed-Assist technology (ISA) would be a "centralized" system and not require that your car contain an accurate speed limit database ("decentralized system"). 

My experience with speed control is in a railroading/rail transit environment, and (not surprisingly) there has been a great deal of reluctance in our industry to adapt and the arguments for/against are similar to those expressed here.  Here's a different take based on the issues from railroads/rail transit systems:

1.  Speed control and "overspeed" enforcement work independently of each other.  Once an "overspeed" condition is detected, there will typically be a function that removes the "throttle" and after a short period of time, starts to blend in the brakes if the "overspeed" condition still exists.  Then there is a second level of "overspeed" that assumes a critical failure has occurred (but not necessarily detected) and applies emergency brakes until the vehicles comes to a complete stop.  These are particular difficult to properly control/enforce when a vehicle has been "throttling up" to overcome the affect of gravity upgrade and you encounter a speed limit reduction at the "top of the hill".

2.  Folks will tolerate the enforced speed reduction due to an "overspeed" condition.  But everybody hates the consequences of an "emergency brake" application.  I can imagine that stopping a car doing 85MPH in [free flow] rush hour traffic will cause a backup similar to a nasty accident, even if we can make the "emergency brake" application nice and smooth such that the safety of the following vehicle is not compromised.

3.  We are used to newer versions of "cruise control" that can closely maintain the programmed velocity target.  But manual driving and certain failure modes indeed make it common to trigger the "overspeed" condition, and it can be difficult to avoid the "penalty brake" application.  Worse, it is always complicated to switch from "penalty braking" to "resume speed", and even with today's level of control the "accordion affect" in rush hour traffic is going to be an issue.

None of this is capable of addressing the most common speed-related safety issues, whereby a driver intentionally wants to control their vehicle in a manner that is unsafe to other drivers (ergo, improperly entering the "conflict zone" in intersections and merge paths).  Thusly, the railroading/rail transit industries have focused most of their safety efforts on "conflict zones" (which we call "interlockings").  Furthermore, the airline industry is almost totally focused on this, being more concerned about "underspeed" than "overspeed".

Emergency braking would be triggered? This sounds incredibly dangerous. Then again alot of these safety features are meant for people who don't belong behind the wheel of a car. Any system that resists a drivers ability to accelerate/decelerate/turn when necessary is more dangerous than speeding. Hard limiting someone to 70 instead of 80 or 75 instead of 90 isn't going to stop them from crashing into gridlock traffic ahead of them when they aren't paying attention. My first car, which I still drive sometimes, has no E-braking, no lane-keeping assist, an analog speedometer, manual-power steering, or even cruise control. My 2nd car, has cruise control and a digital speedometer but still none of the other assist features. They actually have to be driven, and I like that just fine. Hence the term driver.

[Rothman]

I was driving a rented Chevy Malibu that slammed on its brakes prematurely as I approached another vehicle.  I hate that "assistance."

[Dirt Roads]

Emergency braking would be triggered?

Not necessarily.  That's just how the existing technology is designed.  The automotive industry has been reticent to use pre-existing [autonomous operations] technology (primarily developed for PRT systems).  But my point is that if the automotive industry *doesn't* use pre-existing technology and chooses to develop their own Intelligent Speed-Assist technology (ISA), then they will go through the same learning curve that we did back in the 1960s and 1970s. 

Emergency braking would be triggered? This sounds incredibly dangerous.

It doesn't have to be dangerous (we can achieve fairly low emergency brake rates that allow trailing vehicles to adapt).  However, even if ISA reverts to a speed "governor" type of enforcement, there will certainly be situations where emergency braking would need to be employed.  In railroading/rail transit, an emergency braking application is required to be fail-safe and irrevocable.  I don't see where those would ever be required in the automotive world, but there would be some significant liability associated with the lack of fail-safe controls, just like in today's [autonomous operations].

Which raises an interesting question:  Do any of the current automobile manufacturers provide adaptive cruise control or [autonomous operation] that has any form of speed enforcement?  My impression is that you can set the ACC for whatever speed that you wish, and it will maintain safe vehicle spacing.

[Dirt Roads]

^^^
By the way, I had a somewhat-related incident with early-version ACC about 5 years ago.  I was trailing a small pickup truck on the Interstate and the ACC reduced my speed following to his speed (a tad under 75MPH, given a 70MPH speed limit).  After passing an exit and associated underpass, the small pickup truck jammed on his brakes and pulled across the on-ramp onto the berm.  The ACC apparently detected an "emergency stop" condition and locked onto the vehicle, even though he was now some 40 feet or so away from the right-hand lane.  I mistakenly thought that I could "shake him off" by switching lanes, but the ACC kept on hard braking (we call this "full service braking" in the rail transit industry).  I got down to 5MPH in the fast lane before passing the vehicle, then my car blasted back up to the ACC setting of 75MPH.

I later reported this to the manufacturer (Honda) and was reminded that I should have cancelled the ACC under those conditions.  Months later while experimenting, I also found out that the ACC would "shake him off" if I used the turn signal before switching lanes.  (I always use turn signals, so I'm not sure whether I forgot to use them or whether Honda had made a software correction).