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.
Two important bits in TFA are not mentioned in the summary:
1. there will be a switch to disable the speed limiter until the engine is powered off.
2. The car gets a black box that can be accessed after an accident.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
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.
huh, they aren't introducing new speed limits, you will still be able to drive as fast as you want on the autobahns.
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.
Last time I looked Australia was not in Europe. Also, trucks also have to obey the speed limit too. Heck, in a number of countries in the EU trucks have speed limiters.
Sig?
How is the insurance company screwing you if you willingly don't comply with the speed limit? Speed limits are there for a reason.
Sig?
...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.
Germany has been considering new speed limits since at least the 1970s but nothing ever happens.
If you've ever driven in Germany you'd know how the system works. The autobahans are full of police cars. You can overtake them at any speed, no problem, but try tailgating, using your phone, changing lanes without indicating ... acting like an asshole/idiot in any way at all and they'll be down on you like a ton of bricks.
It's not the speed that kills you when you're on a nice straight road, it's the distracted soccer moms and self-centered idiots.
No sig today...
It's not the speed that kills you when you're on a nice straight road, it's the distracted soccer moms and self-centered idiots.
I have to say the first autobahn accident I saw was pretty impressive, some guy in an s class spun across 4 lanes of traffic, taking loads of other (innocent) people out.
I know two guys killed because their one-year-old BMW literally stopped in the fast lane and they were rammed by another car 5 minutes later doing 300kmh. Somehow the driver survived.
It is the anomalies that kill you and doing race track speeds without the associated safety systems in place, such as you have on a racetrack, you will end up with deaths of both safe and unsafe drivers.
That's not the insurance company screwing you, that's you screwing the insurance company.
Ezekiel 23:20
This 'feature' really makes me want to buy a new car...
Rear fog lamps.
I guess other countries have similar rules to the UK which is they are only to be used if visibility is less than 100 metres.
If we're talking about mandatory speed limiters on cars, let's also have the speed limited to 40mph whenever the high intensity rear fog lamps are switched on to put a stop to the idiots in over powered cars doing 85mph in the third lane in torrential rain with the fog lamps on.
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
Considering my car's sign recognition camera routinely misinterprets and claims e.g. the speed limit is 140 in a 50 zone, this should get fun.
If it's on by default, I predict the sales of GPS jammers will skyrocket if this becomes the norm. Not to mention duct tape to cover the sign reading camera. Yes, even if you can actually turn it off in settings, a lot of people simply won't read the damn manual.
It is the anomalies that kill you and doing race track speeds without the associated safety systems in place, such as you have on a racetrack, you will end up with deaths of both safe and unsafe drivers.
Really?
The real world called, they disagree...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Safety:_international_comparison
The Autobahns are safer than the average motorway in the world.
That's because those statistics are gathered independently by each country, and each using their own rules. And the rules in Germany are absolutely ridiculous: you only count as a fatality of a road accident if you die at the spot. Once they load you into an ambulance, and you kick it the moment they shut the door, nope, not a car-related fatality, you don't go into the stats. In most other countries you get counted as a road accident fatality if you die within a week or so.
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....
Don't be so hasty in pointing fingers.
I live in NL, in the so-called "Randstad" area, which is several of their biggest cities situated so close to each other that they form almost uninterrupted metropolitan area along the west coast. I have never owned a car, even my license expired few years ago (and I would not dare use ti without refreshment course anyway). Commuting with bicycles and trains. 300 000 km in the train, about 40 000 km on a bicycle in 17 years.
Such efficient, fast, clean train system is expensive. Really expensive. I work 65 km from home. If I purchase monthly train subscription for this trajectory only it comes to 300 Euro per month (if you subscribe for a full year; month by month it is 350). I use "always free" subscription (travel everywhere at all hours) that costs 342/400 Euros per month. So far every company I worked for covered those expenses in full. If I'd use a car they'd give me 80 Euro per month and that's that.
So, you see that a combination of living and working in the busiest metropolitan areas (I guess substantial portion of the population is concentrated there) plus the generous companies (who do this because they get some tax kick-backs to encourage people to switch to public transport) allows me to use this option. So I can work or read or just doze off during my commute which is great. Also, the women are nice to look at (major users of that transport are the middle and worker classes plus all students at all levels). Do they have plenty of issues with the system? Sure! But the cars also get stuck in jams regularly.
Did I mention I have no children? That's a big one even though helicopter parenting is not as wide spread here as in the USA.
However, once you are out in the countryside it becomes a bit difficult. Transport is available but you have to wait quite a bit. And suddenly traveling with a car is twice as fast as public transport, whereas in the metro area the trains do 140 km/hr (or 160km/hr on one specific and very busy trajectory Amsterdam-Schiphol-Rotterdam) and are as frequent as 4-6 times per hour. And thus, contrary to what some might imagine it is the rural inhabitants and those is small towns that do not use trains and buses so much but make do with cars and motorcycles.
I am not an expert but in my opinion a train system with such efficiency cannot be supported to connect everyone, everywhere for an affordable price. At least for now. But many smart hybrid-like solutions are probably available if we care to implement them. For example, I would love to have properly automated car. Very small, cheap, electric. If I can go in and say "bring me to work" and then read my books....bring it on! No traffic jams, much more efficient use of the roads, improved safety...what's not to like?
In USA I think the cities can do so much more to improve the transport and reduce the car usage. I guess you can build some high speed lines to connect the really big cities....but will it be convenient enough and affordable enough? I don't know but I have the feeling that you can win bigly there ;) And yes, I agree that the car lobby has had too much influence. Still, public transport as it is is not the answer to everything...
I guess the whole point of my ramblings is "It is complicated. Don't be hasty! Think rationally instead of ideologically"
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) --
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 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.
It is also important to remember that people don't always have great choices here either.
When I bought my house, I bought one on the bus line (as shitty as it is), only a 15 minute (or so) bus ride to work downtown. Great, right? My wife's employer is ALSO only a 15 minute (or so) bus ride to work downtown. Even better, right?
Fast forward two years. That employer now tells me that I am working out of an office 30 minutes away (best case) by car, way out in the sticks somewhere, and I can like it or lump it.
So, what, I'm just going to quit my fucking job? Or maybe my can sell one house, buy another house close to the new office, and my wife can quit HER fucking job, since she still works downtown! Or maybe I can just keep the job long enough to find a new job downtown - however long that takes. But in the meantime, I still have to get to work!
Hey, and you want to guess why the employer moved the office out of downtown and way out into the sticks somewhere? Because rents in the city are a lot more expensive. Who'd a thunked it??
As a side note, I routinely find myself going 80 mph+ on the highway with a posted limit of 55 mph. Fuck speed limiter devices.
This doesn't prevent speeding. All that's being talked about is adding some "no-acceleration" pedal travel around the speed limit.
Honestly, if you could add a +- X kph to the speed limit, this is a feature I would like. Call it "speeding ticket prevention mode". ;)
I have no issues with limitations so long as they can be overridden, with the difficulty of the override being proportional to the risk. For example, I would personally like to see a hard limit of +30mph / +50kph over the speed limit that can't even be beaten by further accelerator pedal travel... but can still be circumvented by activating an "Emergency Mode" which makes your lights flash and an external siren sound. Such a hard limit should also be activated at lower speeds if the vehicle knows that it can't cope with the situation that a user is trying to subject it to, such as a hill that will make it jump, a turn it couldn't possibly take, etc.
Obviously, in places with no limit, such as on a track or Autobahn, a "+30mph / +50kph" over the limit scenario would never occur.
For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
Obviously, you do not drive in Memphis, Tennessee!
/sarc
Being able to accelerate quickly and well beyond the speed limit has saved my life: Avoidance of accidents AND Avoidance of pre-planned accidents by insurance scammers and/or gang members.
Now maybe Europe doesn't experience auto accidents or have insurance scammers or have gangs! Must be a great place to live!
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
And you can, under the EU proposal. How long does it take you to floor a pedal?
The effect of flooring the pedal doesn't change. What changes is that there's a "zero action" point in the pedal's range around the speed limit, where the car only gives enough force to maintain speed. Push at all past that, and you're back to accelerating.
As a separate issue, under what I'd like to see, you'd be limited to going more than 30mph / 50kph over the speed limit without activating an emergency mode. But that shouldn't pose a hindrance to you in your "pre-planned accident" scenario either.
For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
And why shouldn't they? What gives you the right to drive recklessly and endanger my life?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
Yeah. That must be it. Since no one did.
The carbon footprint of those living in cities is, in general, lower in western nations.
Really? I hope you're adding in the extra "footprint" of trucking in all that food that is produced in rural areas.
I also hope you're adding in the extra "footprint" of all the resource development happening in non-cities that make cities possible.
Rural areas and people can survive just fine without cities. Cities and people living there can't survive without rural areas. Given this truism, which is the more "natural" way to live?
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.........
> I didn't buy cars easily capable of going well over 100mph, to not occasionally 'air them out' when conditions around were safe to do so.
And if you bothered to read the article, this would not prevent you doing this in the slightest.
> I don't need the govt. limiting me.
There is a not insignificant chance that seat belt and DUI legislation has saved your life without you ever realizing it. Your freedoms are weighed against the statistical chance of hurting others. Deal with it.
> Geez, the nanny state is growing further and faster than ever....are people so scared for their lives these days that they are afraid to live a little and have some risk in their lives?
Look into anti-vaxx. There's lots of unnecessary ways to risk your life "these days" AND the life of others if you are that particular brand of asshole.
Go on, cowboy. Let that testosterone fly!
There should never be constraints on YOU!
Who gives a flying fuck if you splatter your guts and metal all over the highway! NOT ME!
My insurance rates go up because of your let-the-throttle-fly attitude, no, no not me.
Find a highway as soon as you can. Let 'er rip, dude. Use a dashcam so we can see just what kind of guts you have, bubba!
NO ONE SHOULD LIMIT YOU! YOU ARE FREE! LIBERATED! JUST DO WHAT THE HELL YOU WANT! I WiSH I HAD YOUR BALLS!!!!
Your nanny should've smacked you upside-the head a few more times to knock some sense into your thick, over-testosteroned skull so that you might survive, but hey, please become a Darwin Award statistic.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.
I didn't buy cars easily capable of going well over 100mph, to not occasionally 'air them out' when conditions around were safe to do so.
I don't need the govt. limiting me.
It's not about you, or at least, not necessarily about you.
If you want to get on it, you can go to a track.
Going quickly on public roads is a hazard to others, even if nobody is around. You could go off the road and into a tree and cause a fire, or off the road and into a river and dump your crankcase lube into an ecosystem.
I like driving quickly too, but the reality is that the vast majority of public roads aren't designed for speeds like those, and the vast majority of other drivers don't behave well enough for it to be safe to travel at those speeds even if they were. There's no corner workers, nobody is checking those roads to make sure there's no debris, nobody is doing a safety inspection before your run to make sure your vehicle is still in condition for the situation, and there's no gravel pits. Or at least, precious few.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It is risk taking behavior, that has gotten the modern world to the advanced state it is in today.
You mean the state in which climate change threatens all civilizations on the planet? Don't worry, we'll fix it in post
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I have driven there for six years in the 80s-early 90s, plus several week long trips in recent years. Rarely ever did I see Polizi on the autobahn. But honestly, there was little need for them because everyone typically followed the rules, except for the tailgating which I saw numerous times with people quite literally a couple feet apart at 100+ mph speeds. Of the ~50 countries I've driven in, Germany was by far the best organized, and most disciplined drivers.
Just another day in Paradise
They're thick some days. I've seen them pulling over every 10th car. There was a big soccer game and the drunks were out. It takes very little to be 'drunk' by German road standards, any measurable ethanol IIRC.
Germans are a bunch of goddamn law abiders. A speeding ticket is cheap by American standards and can't affect your insurance rate, but Germans are afraid of being shamed.
I'm only a German citizen on a technicality. Rules are suggestions.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
We don’t do mph in mainland Europe.
-- Cheers!