Slashdot Mirror
EU Set To Mandate Speed Limiters In All New Cars (bbc.co.uk)
AmiMoJo shares a report from the BBC: Speed limiting technology looks set to become mandatory for all vehicles sold in Europe from 2022, after new rules were provisionally agreed by the EU. Road safety charity Brake called it a "landmark day," but the AA said "a little speed" helped with overtaking or joining motorways. Safety measures approved by the European Commission included intelligent speed assistance (ISA), advanced emergency braking and lane-keeping technology. The EU says the plan could help avoid 140,000 serious injuries by 2038 and aims ultimately to cut road deaths to zero by 2050. Under the ISA system, cars receive information via GPS and a digital map, telling the vehicle what the speed limit is. This can be combined with a video camera capable of recognizing road signs. The system can be overridden temporarily. If a car is overtaking a lorry on a motorway and enters a lower speed-limit area, the driver can push down hard on the accelerator to complete the maneuver. According to the report, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot-Citroen, Renault and Volvo already have models available with some of the ISA technology fitted.
Germany allowed for impressive fast cars so people can get all over Germany in a shorter time.
To be at a meeting on time, to conduct business. To go on a holiday.
Powerful and safe cars designed for German fast roads. With very advanced medical care that's ready all over Germany.
Now the EU steps in to remove that advanced German technology and returns once advanced Germany to slow Communist East German speed limits.
Now with slower new cars and more tax.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
And of course lets not forget exemptions for 'special' people, you know, those with urgent high level government work, like being rich and driving their uber-toys..
Of course it will create a nice little black market in bypass systems...
Of course they say it would have an on-off switch (for a compulsory system? unique), and I am sure that wont be logged and/or reported..
Lets for a moment ignore the fact that speed is not THE cause of most road fatalities (that honor falls to drunk driving, exhaustion, and distracted driving in about that order).
I wonder when they will mandate riders licenses for road use of pushbikes, along with warrants for safety, road taxes, and license plates so that red lights cameras can work on them..
Sigh.
How long will that option be an option able to be used?
The black box shows the speed limiter was set to off? Any insurance is not approved if the speed limiter is not always on?
Police ask questions as to why the speed limiter was off?
Having the ability to "disable the speed limiter" may not be allowed for everyday car use on any road.
A fully safety inspected, upgraded and approved car for a track day can ask for permission to "disable the speed limiter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Not everyone lives in a city. Even those that live in metro areas, often have no point to point transportation options beyond cars. It's great when people are so self centered, that they project their own needs on everyone else and then demand the government dictate those limitations on everyone.
Go liberate USA your own haunted place. We are quite satisfied here in EU and can solve our own problems without fingerpointing.
...How do you pass a car doing 45 mph on a road limited at 55 mph? The answer is, you don't, and are delayed and consigned to do 45 as long as the bozo in front of you decides to do 45, because it would take too long to pass, and some oncoming car would come out of *somewhere* to give you an exciting ride.
And then of course there is the emergency aspects of this - you're being chased, or you're attempting to get the H out of the woods before it burns down entirely, or you're just keeping in front of the mile-wide tornado, etc. etc.
You're doing the 70 mph limit on an Interstate highway, and want to get into the right lane to exit, and need to sprint ahead just a little to increase clearance with the car behind so you can get in the right lane to access the exit, and... you can't do it. And its FAR more difficult to attempt that by slowing and dropping into a space behind that car, as there may not be such a space, some pinhead without a speed limited car may come racing up just to keep you from being able to do that (every other person on the road is a prick, in case you haven't noticed), and on, and on... 1000's of reasons why this is a bad idea.
The ultimate reason that this is a bad idea is that I would never, ever, ever buy a new car again, and know a lot of people that would feel the same way. I belong to the Sports Car Club of America, about 55,000 people, so there's 55,000 "no sale"s right there. And being how this is the USA, and we are a bit 'round the bend about the freedom thing, one of the biggest reasons we have 350 million privately owned firearms in a country with about 320 million people including the kids, such a car would not make a lot of money being sold here, I think.
That's not the insurance company screwing you, that's you screwing the insurance company.
Ezekiel 23:20
Real freedom is not needing to own a car (and not have it affect you in the slightest). The best cities are car-free.
No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Someone puts up a 0 km/h sign in the middle of a 120 km/h stretch of road?
Will the car just come to a sudden stop with all the cars behind it crashing into it?
The problem is not that it is the cause of accidents. The problem is that it increases the risk of fatalities for all user: https://ec.europa.eu/transport.... Hitting a pedestrian at 32km/h kills the pedestrian 5 times out of 100. Hitting a pedestrian at 64km/h kills the pedestrian 85 times out of 100.
My son enjoy taking is bike to go ride with is friend. I sure hope it doesn't get involve in an accident but if it ever happens, I'd prefer that the car was forcing the driver to respect that 30km/h limit in the village. And if he bypassed the system then he would have to take the responsabilities for it. And by the way, I don't understand people speeding in densely populated area. Most of the time you're doing small distances in those areas. Here in Belgium the 30km/h zones are at most 2km long I'd say. It takes 4 minutes at 30km/h, why would you risk lives of people for earning at most 3 minutes. The speed limits are not there to annoy people, they are there to limit the inertia of your car when you'll hit that wall, people, what else, the day you have a problem. And we all make mistakes and accidents. And also for those "pilots", king of the roads, even if it's not you the problem, if you are speeding on the highway and I overtake someone forgetting to look in my mirror and you hit me, it will be my fault indeed, but we will both die, if you'd respect the speed limit, we'd still be alive so that you would be able to receive the money from my insurance.
This move is a step in the right direction.
What sig ?
aims ultimately to cut road deaths to zero by 2050
You can aim all you want, but cutting road deaths to zero by 2050 is a very naive goal..
Unless we won't have roads anymore....
I think that argument cuts both ways to be honest. People who want to commute long distances tend to pretty vocal about societies providing them with good roads, about having parking spaces in the other end, and asking the people in between to put up with the pollution, the noise and the risk of death that they cause.
I think that this argument has held too much credence for a long time, and it is time we should stop. It not an argument about liberty but about what we want our cities to be for.
How is the insurance company screwing you if you willingly don't comply with the speed limit? Speed limits are there for a reason.
Yeah, usually populist politics.
Sure, there are obviously sensible limits (residential areas, near schools etc.) but a lot of the speed limits outside the cities are more or less random, guided only by politics. There are areas where a lot of people are affected by accidents and yet the speed limit stay high, and then there are areas where nobody really lives but where lower speed limits suddenly appear. This lack of sense undermines the belief in them and then people tend to drive as they please.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
"No, it's being able to go where and when you want. If you're stuck on foot or relying on others you're not going to get far."
Your freedom to go where and when you want, unfortunately, contradicts my freedom to go how I want. I'd like to have a quiet, peaceful, unpolluted city, with high quality pavements and good bike routes for long distances.
Likewise, your freedom to quiet, peaceful, unpolluted cities with high-quality pavements and good bike routes contradicts my freedom to a hustle-bustle, high-GDP, high-income and high-tech economic powerhouse city.
How about you stop trying to spin your selfish desires as "MUH FREE-DUMBS"? You want all of that, then move to the damn countryside.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Sounds a wee bit like the ill-fated 737 Max 8's MCAS system, which overrode the pilot's climb ability when they needed it most.
Not having power when you need it to safely avoid an accident will cost lives.
But, just as with self-driving cars, more lives will probably be saved, overall, by the system. Because humans, on average, aren't great drivers; computers can, or soon will be able to, outperform them.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
I'm sorry have I posted a bunch of rants about how people with cars should leave cities to be a utopia for bike pricks? You seem to be very bothered that people have the audacity to drive around in cities. All I said was the ability to travel is a a good metric for freedom as it lets you go further, quicker and gives you more options. I never said you can't ride your bike or suggested the be excluded from anywhere or told anyone to do/not do anything. You go ask any kid itching to get their first car and ask them what it means to them then offer them a bike instead and see how that goes.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
As with “gun-control” legislation, less-than-honest politicians (in the EU and the UK) have cynically, quietly excused themselves from compliance.
Not surprisingly, vehicles transporting politicians (in the UK and the EU) will never have ISA installed.
It’s good enough for us, but apparently not for them.
Shocking, isn’t it, that politicians themselves are evidently hesitant about personally enjoying all the endlessly-ballyhooed “benefits” of this new, mandatory technology.
Could it be that they don’t trust this dubious kit any more than the rest of us do?
But of course, their lives and safety are “important.”
Ours apparently less so.
It is risk taking behavior, that has gotten the modern world to the advanced state it is in today.
Trying to always stay safe, stifles progress and innovation.
Not to mention, that life is boring without any risk.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Lets for a moment ignore the fact that speed is not THE cause of most road fatalities
Actually it is but not in the way you are probably thinking. My grandfather once pointed out to me a logically airtight fact. If you are the vehicle operator of a vehicle that causes any accident there is one inescapable truth in every case - you were driving too fast for the conditions. Those conditions include the mental state of the vehicle operator as well as weather, traffic, and the rest. This is always true even when other factors are in play as well (which there often are). If you hit something unintentionally at any speed (even at 1kph), it is ALWAYS true that you were driving too fast for the conditions. Sometimes the only safe speed is 0. If you are drunk any you hit something, being drunk is obviously causal but equally true is the fact that you were driving too fast for the conditions. You should have not moved the vehicle. You cannot hit something if you are not moving. A vehicle moving sufficiently slowly (possibly 0kph) by definition cannot cause a fatality.
Bear in mind that police can issue tickets for reckless driving at speeds well below the legal limit for a given stretch of road if the conditions warrant. Speed limits only apply when conditions are "normal". Once something changes "normal" (weather, impairment, distraction, disability, etc) then speed absolutely becomes a consideration.