111–120 of 954 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The scale of vehicular traffic these days make such a scenario seem quaint. The highways and interstates would be littered with cars.
We already know how evacuations by car would play out; poorly. Just check out how slow it takes to do hurricane evacuations, and we know about those days ahead of time.
But... so many people are practically forced to exceed the limit just to keep up with the rest of the traffic that's already blowing past the limit. If you force a few people to go at the limit, that's frustrating for everyone behind them in the best case at best... and I imagine possibly even more dangerous in the worst case, no? If they're going to enforce then shouldn't they try to enforce it as widely as they can…
No.
Waymo put the myth to bed [1]. Even if you might piss off a speeder, driving the limit in speeding flow remains safer as the handling advantage (frequency) and exponentially-lower energy in the event of a collision (magnitude) dwarf other effects.
The technical aspects of this seem concerning. I'm wondering exactly who has the authority to set a car to this mode and how the mechanism of doing so works. What happens if you sell the car or let somebody else borrow it? Or when you get another car, or rent one? What are the failure modes of it, like if the GPS glitches a little and decides you're on a feeder or surface road when you're actually on a freeway? I thi…
I.e. you just remove it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All it takes is a simple law stating that if you circumvent the speed limiter you face far more serious penalties. Done and done. Literally no different than how we handle suspended licenses.
> Literally no different than how we handle suspended licenses. The article points out that 75% of people with suspended licenses continue to drive.
The technical aspects of this seem concerning. I'm wondering exactly who has the authority to set a car to this mode and how the mechanism of doing so works. What happens if you sell the car or let somebody else borrow it? Or when you get another car, or rent one? What are the failure modes of it, like if the GPS glitches a little and decides you're on a feeder or surface road when you're actually on a freeway? I thi…
Also, glitch does not look like a big problem, since for now the system will only verbally warn, just once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A clear outlier case. Policy should not be made based on the 1 in 1000000 case that's going to be tragic no matter what's put in place.
> A clear outlier case. Everyone speeds a little when they think it's safe, but some people speed excessively . This is about making a remedy available to judges, as an alternative to other, less effective, or more draconic (or both less effective and more draconic), forms of punishment. And judges deal with outlier cases every single day . They job is to look at and weigh all the special cases and considerations, pr…
Then there's 'reckless endangerment' tier which is +15 over the limit.
The example of that guy going 100 in a 40 is beyond even that. It's SO far outside of the range of permissible I don't even know that there's a good legal construct for it.
That's the vehicular version of taking an otherwise legal handgun and for relative examples. Not just happening to fire it somewhere you maybe shouldn't have but in a way that was safe. Nor the really stupid but often OK if there aren't people around act of a celebratory shot 'up'. No, that example has gone even further beyond and is like blind-firing at the side of a brick building, headless of how thin those are, of any windows, etc.
My argument is that tracking, inhibitors, etc should be too far for the other cases, and not enough for a case like the individual in question. Someone clearly made a product and wants to make money by offering it as a form of limiting other people's freedoms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because if you don't have a car in most of the US then you're fucked.
Which gives you a really strong incentive to not put other people’s lives at risk by driving recklessly.
The 85% rule is and has always been bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Literally no different than how we handle suspended licenses. The article points out that 75% of people with suspended licenses continue to drive.
Criminalising driving on a license suspended for a traffic offence (note: not expired or for financial reasons) seems like the easiest no brainer imaginable.