691–700 of 954 posts
This has as much to do with chronic speeding as bans on encryption have to do with terrorism. It is nothing more than a foot in the door for massive police surveillance of all motor vehicles. Virginia famously cares more about police than the rights of its citizens so it isn't a surprise the weapons of the future police state are being born there.
People who regularly endanger the lives of others SHOULD be tracked. Want to live freely? Then don't be an asshole.
Repeat offenders should not be allowed to drive. In the UK we have 12 points, and lose them for various offences. You get a fine, usually with the alternative of a course the first time. Speed again within 12 months and you get a fine and a minimum of three points (more if you are well above the limit). Speed again within four years and you will lose more points, and AFAIK pretty much guaranteed to be more than the m…
I agree with everything you’ve said. But, the sort of person who gets 12 points isn’t exactly the sort of person who you would expect to actually stop driving once they’ve got there. They’ve already been in court for speeding (or worse) at least twice, possibly 4 times. Maybe more if they were offered a speed awareness course the first time. If the goal is to stop them speeding then these devices might actually do it…
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…
...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 recall someone analyzing records from LexisNexis or similar (maybe in a news article or lawsuit?) and uncovering all kinds of instances where they were incorrectly labeled as speeding due to crossing a lower-limit road. Unfortunately I can't find the link.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many places in the United States use speed traps as revenue streams, and in many of the same places in the US it's nigh impossible to get around without a vehicle. Taking someone's license away for getting caught doing 5 over a few too many times on the freeway where literally everyone is always doing 5 over and you are more of a danger by not going the speed of traffic doesn't in any way serve the public interest as…
> Taking someone's license away for getting caught doing 5 over a few too many times on the freeway where literally everyone is always doing 5 over and you are more of a danger by not going the speed of traffic doesn't in any way serve the public interest as far as I can tell. It's a death sentence for a victimless crime. What percentage of people who would be effected by this do you think match this description?
Now, at 71 mph, you officially trigger the 15+mph rule mentioned to be a super speeder. Based on anecdotal experience from numerous trips between NY and Ohio, I would estimate that minimum 1 in 5 cars are doing 80+ in a 65. So, at least 20% by my obviously flawed and biased observations. For an actual estimate, in 1988 during the national 55mph speed limit era, an observed 85% of drivers in NY were above the speed limit.
For more context, I have paced many law enforcement vehicles (usually state troopers) doing 10 over with regular traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with this model is that in a lot of places (especially in the US) public transit isn't a viable alternative to owning a car. So if your ability to drive gets taken away a lot of people just end up driving illegally. It's either that or lose your job, income and possibly home etc etc. IMO a forced maximum vehicle speed is a useful middle ground option.
More people (and not just the poorer) needing to use the public transport will definitely have a positive impact on how much money it gets. And if it is being more strict with people who break driving laws, I don't see why that shouldn't happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with this model is that in a lot of places (especially in the US) public transit isn't a viable alternative to owning a car. So if your ability to drive gets taken away a lot of people just end up driving illegally. It's either that or lose your job, income and possibly home etc etc. IMO a forced maximum vehicle speed is a useful middle ground option.
More people (and not just the poorer) needing to use the public transport will definitely have a positive impact on how much money it gets. And if it is being more strict with people who break driving laws, I don't see why that shouldn't happen.
This is because there is a perception among many of lower socioeconomic status that "spending more will raise my taxes, and I already can't afford car insurance", and that public transit projects will not be built to their benefit.
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: Maybe your family has two or three cars, but only one of the people in your family needs this "enforcement". Which car do they nerf?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm much more concerned about someone going 40mph in a 25 zone than someone going 110 in a 75.
They aren’t mutually exclusive. What reason is there ever for a car to go 110?
The Fast Company article says “Republicans in Virginia just passed a law to make it a punishment for repeated traffic violations.” But the Virginia legislature is currently controlled by the Democrats. And the delegate quoted in this local news story is a Democrat: https://wjla.com/news/local/anti-speeding-device-car-reckles... That story is probably more useful than the Fast Company one. It clarifies that the new la…
Just reading phrases like "sky-high rate of crash deaths", "Blazing-fast vehicles" (and similar ones throughout the article) makes it very clear that this is not an attempt to report news, but push an agenda. Reminds me of the "German news is different" video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jphacgBLrc0 ) that explains the difference between US "news" and Tagesschau (famous for being considered a neutral, trusted so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> some emergency situation where a higher travel speed is a matter of life and death Can you describe such a situation? I can't think of anything other than completely unrealistic action movie scenarios.
Medical emergencies are not "unrealistic action movie scenarios". If my family member is bleeding and I'm driving them to the ER, I don't and shouldn't have to care about precise speed limits.