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.
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...
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....
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.
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.