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

261–270 of 401 posts

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#261

Post by randerson »

zehaeva wrote: post #240
randerson wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How close do you find yourself to the truck in front of you? Safe follow distances are, At 65MPH, I'm assuming you're in the US, is approximately 300 feet. I'd be kind of shocked that you're getting stones hitting you and detectable fumes 300 feet away.

My Adaptive Cruise Control has 4 distance settings and I use the 3rd, further than most people's following distance, and I've had stones kicked up by truck tires that hit my windscreen from that distance.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#262

Post by parl_match »

its_ethan wrote: post #165
parl_match wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes I read the article Then you'd read that automatic slowing was one of many options, and it's gradual. > but it's the first step in a very wrong direction Please explain how, because your current complaint is not based in reality.

If cars are required by law to have speed limiting, that means they can know when and where a car is speeding. Cars are closely tied to their owners in many ways (registration, insurance, etc.). One way this could be seen as being a step in the wrong direction is that it not only sets a precedent for collecting that information, but is forcing car manufacturers to start building up that ability. I personally think it…

> that means they can know when and where a car is speeding

These systems don't require reporting data back, and there is no technical reason for them to do so. In fact, nothing in the legislation suggests this.

> it not only sets a precedent for collecting that information, but is forcing car manufacturers to start building up that ability.

Not only have states and cities started doing this, via ALPR, but cars are increasingly being provisioned with cell modems, and have truly awful privacy policies. Manufacturers view this information as a revenue stream.

So, not only does the "possible" situation you describe already exist, but the worst of it is non-state incentivized data collection from car makers. Both of those are (serious, imo) problems, but already exist, and are independent of speed alerting.

So idk what to tell you lol

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#263

Post by kolinko »

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…

Do you have experience with such roads?

I do - we used to not have real highways 10-20 years ago. And the main issue with not overtaking a car-truck that is going just 60 (in your case) is that sooner or later they will encounter someone going 40-50, and they may not be able to overtake. And because of that uou end up driving 40mph on a 70mph road for hours.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#264

Post by zehaeva »

sliken wrote: post #254
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…

> 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 18…

A lot of hills have passing lanes _specifically_ for this issue.

By that logic, that the time vehicles are on the road are necessarily limiting capacity of the system, then we should be vastly increasing the speed limit! Why not 100mph? 120mph?

I mean, it's only 3 times the kinetic energy (over 70mph), so any crash would be that much more dangerous/deadly. It's also very wasteful with respect to fuel, so you'd need to stop more often which would decrease your average speed.

Regardless, all of you all drive way too fast as is. It's not safe, it's not efficient.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#265

Post by frumper »

sliken wrote: post #254
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…

> 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 18…

> Best for everyone involved to pass when it's safe. It increases safety and decreases road utilization.

How does it increase safety? Someone else will just catch up to him on that hill.

> 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.

If safety is your concern, then it's even easier and safer to predict conditions without passing until a passing lane opens up, or a turn out is reached for him.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#266

Post by zehaeva »

kolinko wrote: post #263
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…

Do you have experience with such roads? I do - we used to not have real highways 10-20 years ago. And the main issue with not overtaking a car-truck that is going just 60 (in your case) is that sooner or later they will encounter someone going 40-50, and they may not be able to overtake. And because of that uou end up driving 40mph on a 70mph road for hours.

I mean, I have been driving for the last 30 years of my life, I've driven most of the north east of the US. Through highways, timber roads that are little better than muddy paths, country roads that have never been paved, and pretty much everything in between. I've driven 15 hours straight. I've driven up mountains and across (really small) rivers.

Between all the vehicles I've driven in my life I've accrued, got I hate that I know this number off the top of my head, around 350k miles.

So yeah, I do have experience with such roads.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#267

Post by sliken »

zehaeva wrote: post #264
sliken wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 18…

A lot of hills have passing lanes _specifically_ for this issue. By that logic, that the time vehicles are on the road are necessarily limiting capacity of the system, then we should be vastly increasing the speed limit! Why not 100mph? 120mph? I mean, it's only 3 times the kinetic energy (over 70mph), so any crash would be that much more dangerous/deadly. It's also very wasteful with respect to fuel, so you'd need t…

> A lot of hills have passing lanes _specifically_ for this issue

Sure, but not 100%.

I'm not arguing that speed limits are useless. Just that the speed limits have always been for steady state driving. You can drive all day at them and never get a speeding ticket. However in the interest of safety you should be able to exceed them to pass, this gets the pass over more quickly and is safer and less frustrating for everyone involved.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#268

Post by baggy_trough »

rsingel wrote: post #96
baggy_trough wrote: post #50

Our accursed state senator Wiener is trying to bring the same thing to California.

Love it and love Wiener. One of the most effective legislators in California. Speed limiters/governors are way past due and will save lives and help make streets more liveable

Not something or someone I'm a fan of, to put it mildly.

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#269

Post by dzhiurgis »

gambiting wrote: post #224
bigfudge wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

[flagged]

Re: Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

#270

Post by Thorrez »

ars wrote: post #92
croes wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have relatives who got killed by a speeder you may think differently.

The slight speed increase that ordinary people do does not kill people. We aren't talking about people going freeway speed in a residential area.

Increasing speed increases the chance that someone will die in a crash if it happens, and also increases the chance that a crash will happen. Check out these graphs:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Res...

Post reply on HN