Virginia becomes first state to launch statewide court-ordered speed-limiting te

[Beltway]

Bottom line: HB2096 is a telematics‑monitoring alternative for extreme or habitual speed offenders -- not a statewide GPS speed‑governor program.

Where did I ever say otherwise?

I read the bill text and the article and responded to the whole thread.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

No. You wanted to blame a particular political party, and it turns out it wasn't someone from that party who signed off on it.

[vdeane]

We have a Toyota that apparently is using camera-based speed limit detection systems.  Whenever it can't detect the local speed limit, the system defaults to 35 MPH instead of North Carolina's statewide speed limit of 55 MPH.  I joke to my wife that it thinks we are in New Jersey.

Interesting.  On the Prius at work it will just say blank until it sees a sign if it doesn't just stick with whatever it last saw.

[interstatefan990]

I don't get why this has to be all techy with a GPS-based system to detect specific roads. Why not just install a 70 mph capped speed governor (highest legal speed in VA) in the vehicles of habitual offenders? A lot of the problem is people reaching crazy high speeds on interstates, like the aforementioned reckless drivers over 100mph, which that would solve. Maybe this wouldn't do as much for speeding on surface roads with lower limits, but better that than dealing with all the pitfalls of a GPS system and factors it can't account for.

[Beltway]

No. You wanted to blame a particular political party, and it turns out it wasn't someone from that party who signed off on it.

It wasn't his party that had majorities in both houses of the General Assembly. He would have had to veto it to stop it.

[Scott5114]

The claim that I "insist I'm right about everything all the time" doesn't align with my actual posting pattern.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

No. You wanted to blame a particular political party, and it turns out it wasn't someone from that party who signed off on it.

He would have had to veto it to stop it.

And he...um, apparently didn't do so.

1995hoo isn't exactly a bleeding heart liberal either.

[Max Rockatansky]

The claim that I "insist I'm right about everything all the time" doesn't align with my actual posting pattern.

I find this meme impleasing.

[Beltway]

No. You wanted to blame a particular political party, and it turns out it wasn't someone from that party who signed off on it.

He would have had to veto it to stop it.

And he...um, apparently didn't do so.
1995hoo isn't exactly a bleeding heart liberal either.

I made a political comment earlier, yes -- but my HB2096 summary wasn't political. Once the fake WVEC article showed claims that didn't match the statute, I read the bill text and clarified what the law actually does. The details I posted are straight from LIS, not a partisan argument.

[Takumi]

[ClassicHasClass]

We have a Toyota that apparently is using camera-based speed limit detection systems.  Whenever it can't detect the local speed limit, the system defaults to 35 MPH instead of North Carolina's statewide speed limit of 55 MPH.  I joke to my wife that it thinks we are in New Jersey.

Interesting.  On the Prius at work it will just say blank until it sees a sign if it doesn't just stick with whatever it last saw.

My Civic is the same way. We find it amusing and slightly alarming that if a truck gets in the way of a sign, it will merrily continue to believe that the speed limit on the Interstate is also 35 (or whatever it was).

[NE2]

I think the values my Ford shows are from a database, not generated on the spot. Anyway, I was driving through downtown Okeechobee FL and suddenly it told me the limit was 70 mph. Whatever method they used misread a JCT SR 70 shield as a speed limit.

[kalvado]

I don't get why this has to be all techy with a GPS-based system to detect specific roads. Why not just install a 70 mph capped speed governor (highest legal speed in VA) in the vehicles of habitual offenders? A lot of the problem is people reaching crazy high speeds on interstates, like the aforementioned reckless drivers over 100mph, which that would solve. Maybe this wouldn't do as much for speeding on surface roads with lower limits, but better that than dealing with all the pitfalls of a GPS system and factors it can't account for.

I don't know what is the primary concern in VA, but NYC is concerned about spreading within the city, including school zones
15 mph speed limit + 10 mph courtesy= 25 mph enforced 24-7 isn't too much about safety, but the point is a lot of those multi ticket drivers seem to operate within small neighborhood area, not going onto uncongested freeways.

[Scott5114]

NYC is concerned about spreading within the city, including school zones

If butter is criminalized, only criminals will have butter.

[kalvado]

NYC is concerned about spreading within the city, including school zones

If butter is criminalized, only criminals will have butter.

My impression is that there is a noticable decay of social contract, and a sizeable population of vehicles doing things that would be unthinkable before COVID.
Of course there is a combination of factors like  police being significantly demoralized and COVID causing cutting corners to become acceptable. But the end result is a number of drivers (and I assume not only driving) who does need a heavy hand.
Of course NY being NY, solution is to search for the guilty, punish the innocent and give praise and honors for the government

[hotdogPi]

NYC is concerned about spreading within the city, including school zones

If butter is criminalized, only criminals will have butter.

My impression is that there is a noticable decay of social contract, and a sizeable population of vehicles doing things that would be unthinkable before COVID.
Of course there is a combination of factors like  police being significantly demoralized and COVID causing cutting corners to become acceptable. But the end result is a number of drivers (and I assume not only driving) who does need a heavy hand.
Of course NY being NY, solution is to search for the guilty, punish the innocent and give praise and honors for the government

whoosh

[kphoger]

Bottom line: HB2096 is a telematics‑monitoring alternative for extreme or habitual speed offenders -- not a statewide GPS speed‑governor program.

Where did I ever say otherwise?

I read the bill text and the article and responded to the whole thread.

OK, I'll bite.  When did anyone in the whole thread say otherwise?

[kphoger]

I would also be worried about the GPS misreading your position enough to think you're on a frontage road.

I do have unanswered questions about how well these systems function in practice, given that there is no central database of speed limit information ...

As someone who actually used to be involved in tracking driver speeds by use of GPS monitoring devices in company vehicles...  I am not impressed.

I remember more than one occasion on which a driver was flagged for speeding by quite a lot.  Upon further scrutiny, I determined that the driver was actually obeying the speed limit on an Interstate highway, but the GPS pegged him just as he was going over/under a crossroad with a much lower speed limit, and it erroneously pegged him as being on the crossroad instead.  So all that would show up on the report would be, say, that he was going 63mph in a 35mph zone.  It was only by my plugging the coordinates into Google Maps and closely examining the location, and by contextualizing it within the tech's route that day, that I could tell my boss not to report the driver to his supervisor for speeding.

[Flint1979]

From 13News Now (WVEC):
Virginia becomes first state to launch statewide court-ordered speed-limiting technology for dangerous drivers

Virginia pioneers a court-ordered speed-limiting program for habitual speeders, integrating real-time GPS in vehicles to prevent speeding.

No definition for "habitual speeders". On standard I drive 10 mph over the limit on Interstate and rural arterial highways in Virginia and have been for decades with no tickets. Don't do anything else 'wrong' and you will be fine.

Yeah I'm like that too. I drive 10 over on the interstate and rural roads, the speed limit to 5 over in larger towns and the speed limit in smaller towns.

[Beltway]

Bottom line: HB2096 is a telematics‑monitoring alternative for extreme or habitual speed offenders -- not a statewide GPS speed‑governor program.

Where did I ever say otherwise?

I read the bill text and the article and responded to the whole thread.

OK, I'll bite.  When did anyone in the whole thread say otherwise?

The only reason I clarified the scope of HB2096 is because the WVEC "article" that was circulating in the thread described a statewide GPS‑based speed‑governor system that the bill doesn't authorize. Nobody here said that, but the article did, and several comments were reacting to it. My post was aimed at the misinformation in the article, not at anyone in the thread.

No definition for "habitual speeders". On standard I drive 10 mph over the limit on Interstate and rural arterial highways in Virginia and have been for decades with no tickets. Don't do anything else 'wrong' and you will be fine.

Yeah I'm like that too. I drive 10 over on the interstate and rural roads, the speed limit to 5 over in larger towns and the speed limit in smaller towns.

For me in a 25 I go 30, in a 35 I go 40 or 42, in 45 I go 50 or 52. I haven't seen a small town where I would be afraid to do that.

[kphoger]

§ 46.2-393. Suspension of license on conviction of certain reckless offenses; restricted licenses.

(C)  Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A, when any person is convicted of reckless driving pursuant to § 46.2-861 or 46.2-862, in addition to any penalties provided by law and as an alternative to suspending such person's driver's license, the court may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, require that such person enroll in the Intelligent Speed Assistance Program established pursuant to § 46.2-507 for a period of not less than 60 days nor more than six months.

[...]

§ 46.2-507. Establishment of Intelligent Speed Assistance Program; penalty.

(A)  "Intelligent speed assistance system" means a system that limits the speed at which a motor vehicle is capable of traveling based on the applicable speed limit where such motor vehicle is being operated.

Virginia becomes first state to launch statewide court-ordered speed-limiting technology for dangerous drivers

Virginia pioneers a court-ordered speed-limiting program for habitual speeders, integrating real-time GPS in vehicles to prevent speeding.

The only reason I clarified the scope of HB2096 is because the WVEC "article" that was circulating in the thread described a statewide GPS‑based speed‑governor system that the bill doesn't authorize.

Please explain how the article gives false information.  The bill authorizes a speed-limiting program across the state for habitual speeders—which is exactly what the article says.

[Beltway]

The only reason I clarified the scope of HB2096 is because the WVEC "article" that was circulating in the thread described a statewide GPS‑based speed‑governor system that the bill doesn't authorize.

Please explain how the article gives false information.  The bill authorizes a speed-limiting program across the state for habitual speeders—which is exactly what the article says.

The article is wrong because it describes a statewide GPS speed‑governor program applied to drivers, but HB2096 only creates a statewide judicial option that courts may use for specific offenders. "Statewide availability" is not the same as "statewide application," and the article conflates the two.

[kphoger]

The program gives judges a new alternative to traditional penalties ...

The article ... describes a statewide GPS speed‑governor program applied to drivers, but ... "Statewide availability" is not the same as "statewide application," and the article conflates the two.

No it doesn't.

[Beltway]

The program gives judges a new alternative to traditional penalties ...

The article ... describes a statewide GPS speed‑governor program applied to drivers, but ... "Statewide availability" is not the same as "statewide application," and the article conflates the two.

No it doesn't.

The ellipsis in your quote removes the part of the article's sentence that defines who the "alternative" applies to. The full sentence says the program is an alternative for certain reckless and habitual offenders -- not a statewide GPS speed‑governor applied to all drivers. When you cut out that qualifier, "alternative" looks universal, but the full sentence restricts it to a narrow offender class. That's the distinction your ellipsis removes.

And the ellipses you used when quoting my post removed the part where I explained why the article's wording is misleading. When you cut out the reasoning and leave only the conclusion, it makes it look like I asserted something without support. The full text shows the difference between statewide availability (courts may use ISA anywhere) and statewide application (drivers must use ISA), which is exactly what the article blurs.

[kphoger]

The program gives judges a new alternative to traditional penalties ...

The program gives judges a new alternative to traditional penalties like license suspension or vehicle impoundment.

The ellipsis in your quote removes the part of the article's sentence that defines who the "alternative" applies to.

No it doesn't.  It removes what the other alternatives are, but not to whom they apply.

The full sentence says the program is an alternative for certain reckless and habitual offenders ...

No it doesn't.  But anyway, if it did, then that would be good, because that's also what the bill says.

... not a statewide GPS speed‑governor applied to all drivers.

Neither the bill nor the article says that.  Which is good.

When you cut out that qualifier, "alternative" looks universal, but the full sentence restricts it to a narrow offender class. That's the distinction your ellipsis removes.

The article's second sentence includes the phrase, 'to target chronic and extreme speeding offenders'.  Thus, including more context than I did would only lead a reader to assume that the 'alternative' mentioned later is restricted to such a narrow offender class.  Which is good, because that's exactly what the bill says.

And the ellipses you used when quoting my post removed the part where I explained why the article's wording is misleading. When you cut out the reasoning and leave only the conclusion, it makes it look like I asserted something without support.

The article's wording is not misleading.  It correlates very closely with the actual text of the bill, and the non-universal applicability of the program is stated right up front in the article's second sentence.

The assertion you've made without support is just that the article is vague or misleading.  It isn't.

The full text shows the difference between statewide availability (courts may use ISA anywhere) and statewide application (drivers must use ISA), which is exactly what the article blurs.

Neither the bill nor the article blurs the distinction.  The article neither states nor implies that the new program is universally applied.  Rather, it correctly states up front that it is only intended for chronic and extreme offenders, and it further characterizes it as an 'alternative'—which by definition means it is one option of several.