Opinion Driving at ridiculous speeds should be physically impossible - Bugman suggests adding technology to cars to stop you from driving faster than the speed limit

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Reckless speeding is epidemic in the US. This simple technology could save tens of thousands of lives.​

By David Zipper
Mar 1, 2024, 7:00am EST

1709325153087.png
Kevin Burbach/Associated Press


David Zipper is a senior fellow at the MIT Mobility Initiative, where he examines the interplay between transportation policy and technology. His work has been published in the Atlantic, Slate, Bloomberg, the Washington Post, and elsewhere.


1709325347104.png
Finding the best ways to do good.

Speeding plays a role in over 12,000 US car fatalities per year, around a third of the national total. But an emergent technology could dramatically reduce that death toll, if not eliminate it entirely.

The auto industry has done little to address speeding, and it may be worsening the problem. Although the highest speed limit anywhere in the US is 85 mph (on Texas State Highway 130), most new cars can easily reach triple digits. Speedometers often rise all the way to 155 mph, and even safety-conscious Volvo lets drivers reach 112 mph (those behind the wheel of a Tesla Model S Plaid can top 200 mph).

Sure, a driver passing a semitruck on an interstate might need to briefly break the posted limit. But it’s hard to imagine a scenario where hitting 100 mph on a public road is anything short of reckless. Pedestrians are in particular danger; according to a 2011 study by the American Automobile Association, their average risk of death is 10 percent if struck by a car going 23 mph, but 50 percent at 42 mph and 75 percent at 50 mph.

Being surrounded by multiple tons of metal affords car occupants some protection, but they are hardly invulnerable. Many of the most catastrophic car crashes involve extreme acceleration, such as one in January in which a driver reached 124 mph on a 45 mph North Carolina highway before flipping the car and killing a University of North Carolina undergraduate.

In 2022, a woman flew through a Los Angeles intersection at 130 mph, more than triple the 35-mph speed limit, before striking multiple vehicles and killing five people, including a pregnant woman and her 11-month-old son.

At a national level, Americans are far more likely to die in crashes than those living in other rich countries; even comparably spacious and car-clogged Canada has a per capita crash death rate that is 60 percent lower than its southern neighbor.

1709325185792.png
Steve Story/Getty Images

Happily, a common-sense solution is available. A technology known as Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) can make it difficult or impossible for drivers to drastically exceed the posted limit. Over the last few months, a bevy of federal, state, and local officials have called for ISA adoption on all new cars, or at least on those driven by public employees or those with a history of reckless driving.

From New York City to California, speed-limiting technology is having a moment.

The European Union will require speed limiters in new cars. Could the US do the same?​

It’s been a long time coming. Rudimentary speed limiters have been available for over a century; in 1923, Cincinnati residents voted on a road safety proposal that would have mechanically restricted any car within city limits to 25 mph. That referendum was defeated, and the idea of constraining car speed subsequently faded from popular view.

But the recent emergence of ISA has thrust it back into policy conversations. Initially conceived of in France 40 years ago, modern ISA systems can be divided into two categories, both of which use GPS and digital maps to ascertain the speed limit on the roadway where a car is traveling.

“Active” ISA systems completely prevent further acceleration after the vehicle hits a given speed ceiling, such as five miles over the posted limit. “Passive” ISA is more permissive, relying on sounds, vibrations, or accelerator resistance to compel the driver to slow down (a determined driver can ignore those warnings and keep speeding up).

Both versions of ISA offer something rare and enticing: a straightforward technological fix for a major source of roadway carnage.

In 2022, the European Union adopted a rule requiring all new cars to be outfitted with passive ISA, starting this July. That was a watershed moment for ISA adoption — and it raised eyebrows across the Atlantic.

Later that year, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a groundbreaking pilot program in which ISA would be retrofitted into several dozen city-owned vehicles. The preliminary results are encouraging, showing a 36 percent reduction in hard braking (often used as a proxy for unsafe driving). Adams has spoken about potentially expanding the pilot across tens of thousands of vehicles within the city’s fleet, a move that could amplify safety benefits because cars with ISA also compel drivers behind them to obey the speed limit.

The next big move came last October, when the National Transportation Safety Board released its investigation into a particularly gruesome 2022 crash in North Las Vegas, in which the driver of a Dodge Challenger blasted through a red light at 103 mph (speed limit: 35 mph), striking a minivan and killing himself and eight other people. For the first time, NTSB officially recommended that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the vehicle safety division of the federal Department of Transportation, require all new cars sold in the US to contain ISA.

Although the NTSB lacks the power to enforce its recommendation, it left an impression on California State Senator Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat. In January, Wiener unveiled a bill that would set a deadline of 2027 for all new cars sold in the Golden State to contain an active version of ISA, set to 10 mph over the speed limit (a to-be-defined override would be available in emergencies). Wiener told me that even if his bill doesn’t pass, he hopes that it inspires elected leaders elsewhere to pick up the ISA baton and run with it.

A few weeks later, the District of Columbia City Council unanimously passed a street safety bill that included a new pilot program to install ISA in the vehicles of drivers who “commit serious speeding crimes,” according to Council member Charles Allen. That approach could prevent habitually reckless drivers from further endangering everyone else on the street. (For example, the man who caused the 2022 crash in North Las Vegas already had three prior speeding convictions.)

Momentum behind ISA is clearly growing.

Speed limiting is commonsense policy — but it’ll be an uphill climb​

NHTSA has shown no signs of requiring ISA at the federal level but provided a statement that it was “initiating new research this year” into the technology, without offering further detail.

Why the lack of urgency, despite US crash deaths being up 27 percent from a decade ago? ISA elicits fierce resistance from carmakers (whose marketing ads often feature their vehicles zooming through streets with a tiny disclaimer that they were filmed with stunt drivers on a closed course). The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, an auto industry lobbying association, responded to the California ISA bill by questioning the technology’s reliability.

Some car owners, too, may be wary, imagining scenarios where ISA prevents them from rushing to the hospital. Such occurrences are rare, and when they do happen, an untrained driver blasting past speed limits puts everyone in a dangerous situation. Every ISA proposal I have seen exempts emergency vehicles while permitting regular drivers to go a few mph over the posted limit.

Inevitably, there will be visceral opposition from those who view speed-limiting technology as an attack on “freedom,” even though breaking the posted limit is, by definition, already illegal. “Forget your constitutional rights, those can be damned, even your movement controlled,” fulminated Fox News host Laura Ingraham last November, after the NTSB endorsed ISA. (Several decades ago, the introduction of seat belt laws sparked a similar response.)

But ISA supporters have logic on their side. It is nonsensical that shared e-scooters weighing a few dozen pounds are widely throttled at 15 mph or less, while cars that are 100 times heavier and able to travel 10 times faster have no such mechanical restrictions. The status quo is even more outrageous at a time when the US is mired in an ongoing road safety crisis, including a 40-year high in pedestrian deaths.

With each new ISA bill and pilot program, the Overton window widens, and a federal requirement becomes a little more conceivable. For the sake of everyone on the road — including those who walk, bike, or ride transit as well as those inside a car — let’s hope that day arrives soon.

Source (Archive)
 
Modern cars that go 80 are totally capable of going 100 without any control issues, sportier cars can be quite controllable even up to 120-130 (faster than that shit gets real)
No... 155mph is the danger zone. those speed limiters are very quirky and all are different. mine feels like hitting a brickwall.
The main danger are faster cars without limiters and chinaman on Autobahn trips...
 
This faggot doesn't even own a car. He lives in DC, Capital of Buglandia, where he bikes and takes the subway. Here he is on a podcast called 'The War On Cars" with a bunch of New Yorkers who want to get rid of cars and get everyone into cities:

The unfortunate reality of the United States right now is if you just sort of—poof—remove all the cars or you don’t create any new cars, a lot of people in New York would be just fine. I’d be just fine in Washington, DC. I’m a bike commuter. I use transit and I walk a lot.

"The War on Cars is a new podcast about the epic, hundred years’ war between The Car and The City. We deliver news and commentary on the latest developments in the worldwide fight to undo a century’s worth of damage wrought by the automobile."
https://thewaroncars.org/episode-11...lture-with-david-zipper-final-web-transcript/

Where the hosts show their contemptuous opinions of flyover rubes and their evil cars:
They love cars. They think cars are cool. They grew up with, like, working on their dad’s Mustang or something like that.
drivers are doing something illegal and dangerous—they’re speeding—and we’re basically saying, like, “Okay, you guys who are doing something illegal and dangerous get to sort of determine …”
I don’t know, what—like, what can cities do, David, to, like, start to discourage big, dirty, dangerous auto industry products, and start to replace those products with lighter, cleaner, less expensive, more socially responsible personal mobility devices?
Like, we still have cars. We still have these—so we’re out there on bikes as we are now here in New York City, and it’s like how we all get around. And we’re mixing with, you know, 5,000-pound SUVs that can go 0 to 60 in four seconds. Like, why should that product, why should that personal mobility product be allowed to be used in our city? Like—and how is it okay to encourage more of us to be biking and being out in golf carts when these incredibly dangerous products are on the street too?
 
For the sake of everyone on the road — including those who walk, bike, or ride transit as well as those inside a car — let’s hope that day arrives soon.

A cyclist or pedestrian's responsibility does not end as soon as they begin to bike or walk. I don't drive, but I see peds doing insanely stupid shit all the time, especially cyclists and those clowns who zip around on scooters. Watch your fucking surroundings. It's not that hard.
 
"This simple solution (that would also mean your car knows where it is at all times and will absolutely be sent back to corporate for "reasons") will save lives! If it saves EVEN ONE LIFE that means we HAVE to do it!"

Nevermind that it will just lead to a rash of even more retarded drivers who don't know how to feather the fucking throttle. They'll just get used to relying on "the machine god" to keep them from going too fast, and the throttle will just be an all-or-nothing affair to them. Might as well replace it with a button.

tl;dr - The author should jump in front of a bus.
 
Driving fast doesn't cause accidents. Driving like assholes does. This includes the pricks who do 70 in the far left lane and say "But I'm doing the speed limit!". People get very antsy when passing those people...
 
Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc., clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
Does this remind you guys of anti-car control freaks at all?

They hate cars because they're insecure and they make them feel threatened. Ever notice how their go to insult is to say car guys have small dicks or whatever - pure projection. They're deeply insecure about themselves and project it onto the rest of us.

None of this is actually about cars, urban planning, the environment, or safety. It's all about having total control over others because leftoids just can't help but be solipsistic scumfucks.
 
Retarded, impractical and dangerous.

This is the exact type of thing I imagine the people pushing hardest for all electric and always connected high tech cars were hoping for though.
 
I read a lot of dystopian scifi from the 50s-70s as a kid, and you couldn't believe people would willingly become part of these hellish societies. But you listen to some of these woke fucktards and you can see it. These are the people who would be writing op-ed pieces in the Dome City of Logan's Run 200 years before the movie:

"We've all finally left the dangerous outdoors and live happily in our City, but it's not Sustainable. Even with Fish, Plankton, Sea-greens, and Protein From The Sea, we need to do more. It's wasteful to live long, useless lives. Anything important, the main part of your life, happens in your 20s. Everything after is a sad attempt to recapture that. Experts say it would be better for the climate if people didn't live past 30, which is why I agree with the Lifeclock Initiative."
 
Go ahead. Try and put a speed limiter on my 30-40yr+ motorcycles or my ancient diesel hatchbacks. See how long they last. I may be a curmudgeon when it comes to modern tech but I know how to reprogram a microcontroller or feed false values to an input. Whatcha gonna do? Put an ignition cut out? Alert the authorities when I exceed 100mph?
I feel like an internet tough guy posting this but I am very passionate when it comes to my machines. The future Red Barchetta predicted must not come to pass
 
A cyclist or pedestrian's responsibility does not end as soon as they begin to bike or walk.

That's definitely a big difference I notice driving into the city during the non-winter.

When you are trying to navigate the claustrophobic urban core, you suddenly have the constant new threat of cyclists trying to overtake you by overtaking you on your right between you and the parked cars/curb.

It's really unnatural to have to constantly check over your passenger side shoulder before making a right turn.
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of when I saw a Reddit poster arguing for the legal drinking age to be raised to 25 because "people before that age aren't ready to drink".
I saw a similar post on a site how people at 18 are still kids, and shouldn't have guns. So I asked, if they're kids, should they be able to join the military or vote?'

Ask that of these types, they'll run like the wind and never respond.
 
It's a good thing that pedestrians are far less likely to be walking anywhere where cars are going 50 mph.

I doubt that.

If the EU is doing it then that's a very good reason not to do it. Also reading the rest of the article it seems like a lot of horrible people support this.
To be fair, a common sense solution to speeding is actually available. Its called raising speed limits.
 
I saw a similar post on a site how people at 18 are still kids, and shouldn't have guns. So I asked, if they're kids, should they be able to join the military or vote?'
There was a Republican politician who proposed raising the voting age to 25 (which for the record, I also disagree with) and Reddit was outraged. It was hilarious since Redditors usually love saying "you aren't a real adult until you're 25", you'd almost think they just want the benefits of being an adult without the responsibilities...
 
The European Union will require speed limiters in new cars. Could the US do the same?
The thought implicit here being that because the EU is doing something it must be the right thing scares me more than anything else in this article. Hell, even that it is something all the cool kids are doing. All the big brain types (like the author of this article) in the Boston-Washington corridor seem to operate on this point as an unquestioned assumption.

Which is odd given what a suffocating quasi-fascist regime the EU already is, and that's nuthin' compared to what they've got on the drawing board in Brussels. Or so it seems to this Amerifat.

Pity the term "fascist" or "fascism" is so freighted these days, because I mean the above as descriptive and not insulting, where the means of production remain in private hands, but capital is effectively allocated and controlled from a central authority. I would argue relatively benign regimes like Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore or maybe even the MITI dominated 1980s Japan could credibly be called fascist. Those worked, in ways that for some reason the EU does not, to advance the prosperity and safety of their populace.

The big problem with the EU is not so much that they de facto operate this way in an economic sense, it is the power that accrues to Brussels because of this and the sordid degenerates inside the regime vomiting forth regulations advancing their political agenda. They ain't Plato's Philosopher-Kings, in fact they're about as far from being such a thing as it is possible to be.

Would I personally want to live under a fascist regime? Maybe, if it was the right kind of fascist regime. (Think Yew's Singapore.) And not the EU as currently constituted.
 
LOL gay, imagine writing something like this? Who fucking cares? Presumably, activist groups like MADD are actually personally affected by the issues, so did a speed driver kill this man's "partner" or what?

I want to note that the real reason e-scooters are limited to 15mph is because falling off a motorcycle/bike/skateboard going any faster than that gets dangerous, at the very least you're gonna start losing a lot of skin. It's lawsuit shielding from your stupid drunk users, sure it would be more dangerous or whatever to others if it went faster, but that's not what the limit is about. That really clarifies this argument as "I need to protect moron from itself, and everyone is moron", as opposed to "muh public safety".

Anyways the real reason we can't drive autobahn style in the US is because the fucking drivers suck. The US licensing system is a joke. Modern cars that go 80 are totally capable of going 100 without any control issues, sportier cars can be quite controllable even up to 120-130 (faster than that shit gets real) and interstates don't have any corners that are dangerous at that speed. Yes, greater speed causes more violent crashes (???) but so does the sun rise in the East. We're not gonna de-limit to 55mph. Flying off the road going 80ish is gonna be about as hazardous to your health as doing it at 100, at least I wouldn't want to do it (or at 50, or at 35 for that matter).

These retards can't even figure out where they're driving with a miraculous system that tells them exactly where they are on the planet, and has lines and words (and voice prompts) telling them where they are going next. They can't signal, have no spatial awareness, and when they get bored of using GPS they try to play on their phone while driving. Speed limits should be faster and it's a shame that MORE bad drivers don't die in the near-constant wrecks they cause. Collateral damage is a fact of life. Wear your seatbelts!
Actually, the licensing system has only gotten more difficult and expensive. In my state it takes a year or more to actually get a license. You have to hold onto a learners permit for 9 months without any traffic violations. You also have to attend driving school with mandatory class about driving and DUI. That could cost anywhere from $250-400. At least it did when I had to go to driving school. It's so bad now that people get their license later in life than past generations. People used to get their learners permit when they were 15 or 16 and they would be driving with a real license by 17 or 18. In my state you get a provisional license and have to hold it for a number of years with no traffic violations. I live in a blue state. From what I have heard red states aren't as strict with their licensing systems. It's not uncommon to see people in their 20's without a license these days.

The problem with driving too fast is it degrades your reaction time. It makes quickly reacting to situations harder. It increases the possibility of crashing. It doesn't take much speed for a car to flip over or go off the road. Not everyone is a trained professional stunt driver.

The US doesn't have high speed limits because are roads are shit. The autobahn is well maintained from what I know about it. But US roads are full of potholes and poorly maintained.
 
It's so bad now that people get their license later in life than past generations. People used to get their learners permit when they were 15 or 16 and they would be driving with a real license by 17 or 18.
To play devil's advocate: Couldn't this also be due to the impact of technology? I imagine there's much less incentive for people in that age bracket to get a driver's license now than there was 20-30 years ago. A lot of malls and "third places" now have policies that ban unaccompanied minors, and with the Internet you don't have to meet your friends in person to hang out with them anyway.
 
I am a good girl and drive at an appropriate speed for the road. And yet, there have been a few times in life where the ability to put my foot down and cane it has been very much needed.
Example: you’re driving in the right hand lane and pull to the left to overtake a lorry. The lorry begins to shake. You cannot slow down, as there is someone behind you who also went into the fast lane to overtake. You instinctively know something’s wrong and put your foot down hard to get ahead of the lorry. The lorry’s tyre fragments and the lorry goes across the fast lane and hits the barrier.
80mph is well within the zone where you might need the speed to get out of a dangerous situation.
What this is probably the harbinger of is real time cracking kit that will monitor your speed and fine you if you go a whiff above the speed limit, and usher in pay per mile,
Speed is about context. If you’re doing forty in a twenty zone outside a school you’re an idiot. If you’re doing 90 on a clear motorway in good conditions then no issue
 
Infuriating though it may be to read this nonsense, you can rest assured that none of it will come to pass. Why? Because this sort of thing requires a competent, functional society and we are rapidly passing the low limit on that.
"They'll confiscate old cars!"
"They'll have a network of radar traps covering the entire highway!"
"They'll put black boxes in everything with wifi 5G cancer ray hookups!"
Buddy, they can't track or shoot down a bus-sized balloon floating over the country for days, they can't maintain the bridges, they can't stop hordes of people from looting freight trains, they can't stop methheads from stealing the copper wiring out of street lights. The only thing restricting your speed in the awful clownfuture will be the completely decayed and potholed roads.
 
Back
Top Bottom