NTSB urges Mandate to Limit the Speed of new Vehicles to the Posted Speed limit.

[daves87rs]

Has been an interesting thread so far:

Our country is so full of stupid and angry people right now- the government almost has no choice. Things at times have become a free for all. Do we really want people to go crazy fast in an EV to outrun the cops? What if they take your children while on crime spree?

While I’m all for keeping our rights, we are getting to a turning point . The anger, divide and unrest right now makes the 60s revolution for hippies and civil rights look like a walk to church. Society is teetering on chaos’s. We somehow have to find a balance between freedom and safety- quickly .

The question is how we offer driving freedom-but still stopping tragedy from happening

 

[Torrid]

When are we getting rid of the 55 MPH limit imposed due to the oil embargo back in 1973? Much more unsafe vehicles back then doing 80 MPH and in some areas no speed limits.

Now we have safer occupant compartments, more than double the average MPG, and still have the 55 MPH limit.

Thanks texters and reckless drivers...

The 55mph speed limit I see is only 2 lanes here. All the actual 4 lanes are 65mph or 70mph. I don't think most of our 2 lanes due to curves and terrain are safe for 65-70mph for larger non performance vehicles. Some even have 45mph advisories for corners.

Good idea, and the system should be designed so everyone comes to a full stop at a stop sign.
I don't like people riding my bumper when I do the speed limit and give me a sign for doing so.
I say at the time to my self its not my fault, just get the dang speed limit raised. I can't afford the ticket or the higher insurance because of it. Same goes for almost getting rear ended at a stop sign or light for the free right hand turn. Years ago (in the 2000's) when he was still here my dad got his first ever ticket in this state since moving here in 1955, for not full stopping to make a right hand turn, he was in his upper 70's at the time. A speed limiting system would need some kind of emergency over ride, since its legal to do 100 plus mph when passing on a 2 lane road the get around the other car, and not have a head on.

It's not legal to do 100 to pass on a 2 lane road. Most states its not legal to exceed the speed limit at all to pass. There are apparently exceptions for a few states that allow up to 15mph over for passing which I did not know until I fact checked myself before replying.

 

[KrisZ]

The question is how we offer driving freedom-but still stopping tragedy from happening

Maybe because “stopping” tragedy cannot be achieved, it’s an impossible goal.

More, history has shown that the more tyrannical the government, the more tragedy and loss of life occurs under its rule.

How many times does that experiment have to be repeated? If you combine all the regimes just from the 20th century, the body count is in hundreds of millions of lives lost.
Isn’t that proof enough?

 

[Torrid]

Maybe because “stopping” tragedy cannot be achieved, it’s an impossible goal.

More, history has shown that the more tyrannical the government, the more tragedy and loss of life occurs under its rule.

How many times does that experiment have to be repeated? If you combine all the regimes just from the 20th century, the body count is in hundreds of millions of lives lost.
Isn’t that proof enough?

Not saying I agree with any form of tyranny but “we’ve made it impossible to speed to save lives” is a far cry from “we kill those we disagree with inside of our own society.” Sure, neither one of this could be heralded as freedom but any normal person would say one is objectively worse than the other.

There are others that will say it doesn’t matter and those are the same thing, but those are the fall on the sword for all things freedom which is admirable, though firmly stanced in kookville and its impossible to reason with. Impossible to reason with becomes the second example above with the wrong people in charge though.

I think it may have taken longer than I would have expected to get here from speed limiters, though a part of me would have never thought it would get that far ever at one time.

 

[KrisZ]

Not saying I agree with any form of tyranny but “we’ve made it impossible to speed to save lives” is a far cry from “we kill those we disagree with inside of our own society.” Sure, neither one of this could be heralded as freedom but any normal person would say one is objectively worse than the other.

There are others that will say it doesn’t matter and those are the same thing, but those are the fall on the sword for all things freedom which is admirable, though firmly stanced in kookville and its impossible to reason with. Impossible to reason with becomes the second example above with the wrong people in charge though.

I think it may have taken longer than I would have expected to get here from speed limiters, though a part of me would have never thought it would get that far ever at one time.

The point is that both take the same mind set, not that they are equivalent. Trading the feeling of safety for freedom.

In the past that transition was very abrupt and bloody in the form of a revolution.
The new way of ushering “utopia” is slow and steady erosion of rights and freedoms in the name of safety, saving the environment etc.
It leads to the same end though.

Also, various courts, including the Supreme Court have ruled that the government is not responsible for citizens safety.

 

[KrisZ]

 

[Torrid]

Probably not a good idea to continue down this path on this site. It’s not the proper avenue for it.

 

[daves87rs]

Maybe because “stopping” tragedy cannot be achieved, it’s an impossible goal.

More, history has shown that the more tyrannical the government, the more tragedy and loss of life occurs under its rule.

How many times does that experiment have to be repeated? If you combine all the regimes just from the 20th century, the body count is in hundreds of millions of lives lost.
Isn’t that proof enough?

Never mind- don’t want this to go political… :-(

 

[daves87rs]

Probably not a good idea to continue down this path on this site. It’s not the proper avenue for it.

To be honest, I’m not sure we should have even let it continue- like most things in this country - it is both touchy and political- like we make everything now, sadly……

It’s okay- I’m done in this thread.

 

[IndyIan]

The point is that both take the same mind set, not that they are equivalent. Trading the feeling of safety for freedom.

In the past that transition was very abrupt and bloody in the form of a revolution.
The new way of ushering “utopia” is slow and steady erosion of rights and freedoms in the name of safety, saving the environment etc.
It leads to the same end though.

Also, various courts, including the Supreme Court have ruled that the government is not responsible for citizens safety.

I think there's two issues;
One is that more people are forgetting that they have personal responsibility to think of the effects of their actions on others, for a society with lots of freedoms to work.
And those seeking to increase public safety, and environmental protections, have try to minimize the side effects of their interventions, and clearly communicate the intent of the regulations, and take feedback on how to make the safety measure or environmental protection could work with minimal disruptions.

So instead of having a GPS based system with government/hacker changeable maximum speed zones, maybe more automated enforcement is a better option? More speed camera's in areas that speeding is upping the risks, like construction/school zones. So if you speed in these zones you will be getting a ticket, everytime, but the government/hackers can't turn your car off on you.

 

[KrisZ]

I think there's two issues;
One is that more people are forgetting that they have personal responsibility to think of the effects of their actions on others, for a society with lots of freedoms to work.
And those seeking to increase public safety, and environmental protections, have try to minimize the side effects of their interventions, and clearly communicate the intent of the regulations, and take feedback on how to make the safety measure or environmental protection could work with minimal disruptions.

So instead of having a GPS based system with government/hacker changeable maximum speed zones, maybe more automated enforcement is a better option? More speed camera's in areas that speeding is upping the risks, like construction/school zones. So if you speed in these zones you will be getting a ticket, everytime, but the government/hackers can't turn your car off on you.

Are they really? Or is it just the case of intentions that sound nobel on the surface so that anyone that even questions them gets shouted down as a maniac that doesn’t care for safety of others?

I’m mentioned it already in the tongue in cheek kind of way, about the data behind the his recommendation. But it should be taken seriously IMO

Where is the data? How much will it lower the accident rates, death rates? Is speed the major cause of accidents or is there something else, like smartphone use and texting?
How can the public make an informed decision without any actual facts and numbers about the issue?

 

[IndyIan]

Are they really? Or is it just the case of intentions that sound nobel on the surface so that anyone that even questions them gets shouted down as a maniac that doesn’t care for safety of others?

I’m mentioned it already in the tongue in cheek kind of way, about the data behind the his recommendation. But it should be taken seriously IMO

Where is the data? How much will it lower the accident rates, death rates? Is speed the major cause of accidents or is there something else, like smartphone use and texting?
How can the public make an informed decision without any actual facts and numbers about the issue?

Oh for sure, evidence based decision making should be used for all types of government regulation. And I agree that more open discussion should be allowed, but also people just giving their uninformed opinion shouldn't expect to get a lot of input... The answer is to run a trial program/experiment that is professionally designed for a couple years and find out if near 100% enforcement does anything good for traffic incidents in vulnerable areas.

 

[benjy]

more than a speed limiter, NOT allowing a cell phone to function in a moving vehicle BUT big $$$$ wont let that happen!!!!!!

 

[vavavroom]

Yep...who needs all these "new fangled" gadgets. Who needs Navigation? Much better to try and read a paper map while driving. Yea-it's like no one has done that on here.....

That reminds me of John Belushi reading a paper map while flying blind and FUI in '1941.'

 

[CKN]

View attachment 190484

Just to be clear. If it wasn't for regulations-we wouldn't have break away steering columns, energy absorbing bumpers, crumple zones, air bags, ABS-things that have no doubt saved lives. And yes-IMHO something needs to be done with cellphones, and excessive speeds, but I am not sure of the answers-maybe you are? It's easy to come out against-far harder to come up with solutions.

 

[OVERKILL]

Oh for sure, evidence based decision making should be used for all types of government regulation. And I agree that more open discussion should be allowed, but also people just giving their uninformed opinion shouldn't expect to get a lot of input... The answer is to run a trial program/experiment that is professionally designed for a couple years and find out if near 100% enforcement does anything good for traffic incidents in vulnerable areas.

The problem is that we seem to have a lot of decision-based evidence making that goes on.

 

[IndyIan]

The problem is that we seem to have a lot of decision-based evidence making that goes on.

I think at the scientific peer reviewed published paper level, this is still pretty uncommon, but somehow we have large parts of the general public who don't understand how science is supposed to work and how it can help governments make good policy, and don't think that's a problem....

 

[MCompact]

I’m afraid we are headed down the same authoritarian path as Great Britain; speech restrictions, CCTV cameras most everywhere, automated enforcement, outright bans on cigarettes, and the mayor of the largest city tweeting, “No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife,"

 

[dumkid]

I’m afraid we are headed down the same authoritarian path as Great Britain; speech restrictions, CCTV cameras most everywhere, automated enforcement, outright bans on cigarettes, and the mayor of the largest city tweeting, “No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife,"

No knife! How am I supposed to open my new stuff from harbor freight? Scissors? But I can't use scissors to undo flathead screws to install my new harbor freight stuff, so how will I survive?

 

[Skippy722]

No knife! How am I supposed to open my new stuff from harbor freight? Scissors? But I can't use scissors to undo flathead screws to install my new harbor freight stuff, so how will I survive?

Your scissors come in a blister pack that requires a knife or scissors to open.

I ran into this problem over the weekend…. Bought a new utility knife, that required a knife to open, so I used a kitchen knife and was subsequently scolded by my wife for doing so