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

251–260 of 401 posts

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#251

Post by zehaeva »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #245
zehaeva wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all vehicles are limited in the same way I am uncertain how this could even happen. If the computer enforced max speed is 120km, and I'm going 120km, and the vehicle coming up is also going 120km, they can't overtake you, they can't close the gap. Maybe, if the vehicle ahead of both of you is going much slower than either of you then yeah, they could close the gap. But even in that situation you could speed up to…

> If all vehicles are limited in the same way I am uncertain how this could even happen This won't happen unless it becomes illegal to drive un-limited vehicles entirely though People will drive older un-limited vehicles, or import un-limited cars from elsewhere, or buy limited cars and jailbreak them... You're starting with a flawed premise and then concluding what you prefer

You're adding on a whole lot of edge cases onto an edge and coming to a conclusion that you think is best.

Some guy is shutting you out of the lane next to you, slow down and merge behind them.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#252

Post by surgical_fire »

zehaeva wrote: post #226
jbritton wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 awa…

> Was it really that important to get there that much faster?

The answer may be contingent on how many tacos you ate before this hypothetical trip.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#253

Post by wavemode »

kerkeslager wrote: post #230
umvi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

The reason I'm not free to assault others is because I'm directly causing them to lose their right to life and/or well-being. Whereas speeding merely creates a risk of harm, not harm itself.

Almost anything could be argued to create a risk of harm to others, including driving itself. If we outlawed driving, we would certainly be saving a lot of lives. But we don't, so clearly there is more at play here than the mere fact of creating risk for another human being.

So I think your wholesale dismissal of the argument for personal freedom and judgment, on the basis of infringement of other's rights, does not really hold up to practical scrutiny.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#254

Post by sliken »

zehaeva wrote: post #226
jbritton wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 awa…

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

Actually yes. That truck that's going 60 on the flats is going to be doing much less than that on the hills. Best for everyone involved to pass when it's safe. It increases safety and decreases road utilization.

Keep in mind that 3 hours @ 60 mph is 3 hours with another car on the road. To compensate you'd need another lane for 180 miles, not cheap. Also the rush of passing when a truck slows down is avoided. Additionally it's safer to pass when the speed differences are lower.

Seems better for everyone involved to let cars pass. It's much easier and safer to predict conditions for half the time when passing at +20mph then trying to predict twice as long when passing at +10mph.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#256

Post by its_ethan »

kerkeslager wrote: post #237
its_ethan wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a crime where "100% enforcement" is worth surrendering (even more) individual privacy?

Sorry, what individual privacy is being surrendered here? Note that observing the driver is in no way necessary to implement a speed limiter.

Yea I've noted that there doesn't have to be a camera pointed at the driver... there does, however, have to be either a GPS and/or camera pointing outwards (that could be used to ID location) in order to know what the current speed limit is for the drivers given location.

So the individual privacy at risk is the privacy of not having your location at any given time being knowable to a car manufacturer/ government agency.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#257

Post by zehaeva »

surgical_fire wrote: post #252
zehaeva wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 awa…

> Was it really that important to get there that much faster? The answer may be contingent on how many tacos you ate before this hypothetical trip.

This is the only answer that I've seen that's reasonable so far!

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#259

Post by gnicholas »

It seems understood that people typically go about 5-10 MPH over the limit. I assume that speed limits are set with the knowledge that this is common. If technology like this becomes widespread and results in the actual speeds more closely matching the posted limits, will the speed limits eventually be increased, since it was always understood that people could safely drive a bit faster than the old posted speeds?

Secondly, I remember hearing that some car companies calibrate their speedometers to be a bit conservative (reporting a higher speed than is actually being driven), in part so they aren't sued by customers who get tickets. If different cars show different speeds, what will this do to the flow of traffic? Will everyone end up going as slow as the most heavily down-calibrated vehicles?

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#260

Post by biftek »

zehaeva wrote: post #226
jbritton wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 awa…

It's not always about getting there "faster". I regularly encounter trucks with unsecured loads, drivers visibly weaving, and other dangerous situations. I'm certainly not going to die on some "well this is the speed limit" hill behind them.

Driving isn't some binary situation, you have to constantly predict erratic behavior and react to your surroundings.

Post reply on HN