Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

autoweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 401 posts

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#221

Post by newaccount74 »

nradov wrote: post #204
bigfudge wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like a motoring journalist. Honestly, if you’re exceeding the speed limit to pass you’re unlikely to be gaining much anyway. 99% of the time people should just chill out and accept that driving a car already comes with so many unpaid externalities that not killing other people with your tonne of steel is a reasonable compromise. Speed is the major contributor to mortality and injury on the roads (and in dev…

What a ridiculous comment. Have you ever been stuck behind a slow vehicle? It seems like some of the idealists and scolds here have never driven in the real world.

Have you ever worked as a first responder and seen the stupid things people do?

There's a straight road, almost no traffic, and someone still manages to hit an oncoming car because they feel that they really need to overtake that slow asshole right now but are too stupid to check if there's anyone coming towards them in the other lane.

People are fucking stupid. And I'm also including myself in that, because I've been the stupid idiot in a few situations -- fortunately always had good luck and never caused a serious accident.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#222

Post by nradov »

novagameco wrote: post #108
cheeseomlit wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody follows the speed limit that closely, in the US at least. If my car was hard-capped at the posted limit I'd have a mile-long line of honking tailgaters behind me in no time

If you hog the left lane, sure. I follow the posted speed limit and it's never a problem for me

You never drive on two-lane rural roads? Getting stuck behind a slow vehicle is torture.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#223

Post by gambiting »

newaccount74 wrote: post #216
gambiting wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Also, can some describe in detail a scenario where accelerating makes things safer than simply slowing down Mostly in a situation where you've already messed up. Like you're in a middle of an overtake and suddenly you realize you're not going to make it before the incoming car, speeding up to close the gap can save your life in a way that slamming the brakes and just getting hit head-on wouldn't. And yes, you shoul…

Even in that situation, hitting the brakes and aborting the overtake maneuver is the safer option. With ABS ubiquitous, even hard braking should leave your car maneuverable. If you push on the accelerator, you are just increasing the risk, as you'll hit the car at a much higher speed. The crash is going to be 10x worse. A speed limit would safe a lot of lives, but no-one will implement it because people like to speed…

>>Even in that situation, hitting the brakes and aborting the overtake maneuver is the safer option.

I'm sure you can imagine a scenario where it's impossible to abort - the vehicle incoming is a 40 tonne truck, they won't stop in time to not hit you, you can't merge back into your lane, and there is no room on the other side to escape to - your only option is to accelerate and hope for a tight squeeze.

>>If you push on the accelerator, you are just increasing the risk

Or saving your life, depending on the outcome.

Like I said, it's a situation no one shouldn't be in. But you asked for a clear example where accelerating helps, and that is one, as rare as it is.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#224

Post by gambiting »

bigfudge wrote: post #205
gambiting wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Also, can some describe in detail a scenario where accelerating makes things safer than simply slowing down Mostly in a situation where you've already messed up. Like you're in a middle of an overtake and suddenly you realize you're not going to make it before the incoming car, speeding up to close the gap can save your life in a way that slamming the brakes and just getting hit head-on wouldn't. And yes, you shoul…

This scenario doesn’t make sense. In every case if you slow down and pull in you will have less chance of hitting a car coming the other way. If limits were there it sounds like you think this scenario would also become less common?

>>In every case if you slow down and pull in you will have less chance of hitting a car coming the other way.

If you're in a middle of the overtake with nothing but trucks on the side, once the differential in speed is large enough you'd need the skill of an F1 driver to slow down just enough to merge back in(assuming they even let you in) and not get hit by the traffic behind you and not to lose control of the car. Add any kind of adverse weather conditions and I'd argue this is actually much more difficult to pull off.

>>This scenario doesn’t make sense.

I guess if you've never seen that scenario play out in real life it's hard to imagine how it would happen.

>>f limits were there it sounds like you think this scenario would also become less common?

Of course, but OP wanted an example where accelerating helps, so I gave them one.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#225

Post by uyzstvqs »

Lammy wrote: post #48

I am going to hold on to my 2013 car for as long as possible. Fuck this future where everything “““needs””” to spy on me and everywhere I go.

Rooted cars will be a thing soon enough. If that doesn't work for you, consult your local Amish community for transportation options.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#226

Post by zehaeva »

jbritton wrote: post #210
zehaeva wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if every car is following the speed limit, that is going as fast as they are allowed, why would any one person be passing someone else?

I’m in the US. If you’re on say hwy 395 heading to Mammoth Mountain, the highway is frequently one lane in each direction. If the max speed limit is 70mph, you may come up on a semi truck doing 60mph and you will want to pass using the lane with on coming traffic. This means you need to do 85mph to pass. For this reason our max speed limit laws are woefully inadequate at accounting for real life conditions.

Why will you _want_ to pass? Is that 10mph going to get you there _that_ much faster?

If you were to follow that truck for all 1300 miles of 395 you would get to your destination 3 hours later than if you were going 70mph the whole way.

I would doubt that anyone would want to drive for nearly 19 hours straight, unless you're doing some sort of cannonball run like challenge.

If your destination is a mere 120 miles away, and you followed him the whole way you'd get there only 18 minutes faster. Was it really that important to get there that much faster?

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#227

Post by randerson »

zehaeva wrote: post #134
kodt wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could make it impossible or dangerous to pass in many situations where it may be necessary to temporarily exceed the speed limit.

So if every car is following the speed limit, that is going as fast as they are allowed, why would any one person be passing someone else?

I often find myself behind a truck that is kicking up stones or belching fumes or has a poorly secured load that looks like it could fly off. Doesn't matter if it is going the speed limit, I want to get past it.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#228

Post by kbolino »

mikeyouse wrote: post #198
kbolino wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Speed limits on the other hand are proven to reduce accidents. There have been speed limits on every road in the US for over half a century; how did they conduct a controlled study?

Because speed limits change and it's easy to measure the before/after impact in terms of the number and the severity of accidents as the average speed in an area changes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4989038/

Two major confounders for this argument are the raising of national speed limits from the 1970s to the 1990s, during which time traffic accident and fatality rates went down significantly, and the post-COVID bump in traffic accident and fatality rates, during which time, for the most part, no speed limits went up.

Without a control, there can be no confidence in the claimed causal link. Moreover, "speed limit" vs "no speed limit" is not the same question as "lower speed limit" vs "higher speed limit". People often behave in non-intuitive ways, which is part of why studies are conducted in the first place.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#229

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #192
masterj wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the category of "deaths from speeding" large enough to justify any action whatsoever? Cars kill 40k+ people in the US each year, and speed (really momentum) is a large factor in the lethality of crashes. > Why does the Autobahn still not have speed limits on large parts of the road and why does this not cause massive problems? It's designed for these speeds. Most speeding issues do not occur on highways, but on…

> Cars kill 40k+ people in the US each year, and speed (really momentum) is a large factor in the lethality of crashes. But what actually causes crashes? Speed alone does not cause crashes It's reckless driving, distracted driving, poor driver training, drunk or otherwise inebriated driving, poor road design, drivers suffering medical emergencies behind the wheel, etc Why so much focus on fixing speeding and so littl…

At least in the US - between 30-40% of all auto deaths are caused by speeding: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/speeding-deaths/

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#230

Post by kerkeslager »

umvi wrote: post #97
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally everything causes death. The question is: will this prevent more deaths from speeding than it causes from mistaken slowdowns?

> The question is: will this prevent more deaths [than the alternative] I hate that question. It's pure utilitarianism and is used all the time to rationalize removing/limiting freedoms in exchange for safety and security. Deaths prevented should not be the ultimate metric unless a totalitarian police state that keeps everyone perfectly safe at all times is the desired end goal. In this case I would rather have the f…

The limit of freedom is generally agreed to be "one person's freedom ends when it begins to infringe the freedom of others". Speeding definitely crosses that line.

> In this case I would rather have the freedom to intentionally speed (because I need to get my wife to the hospital more quickly, because I'm in the middle of nowhere and want to, or any other reason I deem rational) than be marginally more "safe" thanks to my vehicle nannying me.

It's not you that your vehicle is keeping safe. It's the other people you put at risk with your decision to speed. Your actions affect other people.

"Because you need to get your wife to the hospital more quickly" is not a good reason to speed. I'm a first responder, and one of the things they teach you in the cert class is to not make more patients. There are numerous examples of people making bad situations worse by taking risks that don't meaningful improve their patient's chances.

And the reality is, people who try to justify speeding, mostly just speed because they're impatient. The "taking wife to hospital" hypothetical is rare and even in the rare cases where it happens, speeding isn't helpful.

Post reply on HN