- Messages
- 5,243
Yesterday I was at a stop light the guy next to me on his phone. The light turned green, I pulled away. As I looked back he just sat there, not moving.
GPS Speed Limiter Law
- Thread starter aGDevil2k
- Start date
- Replies: 69
- Views: 746
- Politics
- Messages
- 2,372
At least he was not in front of you.............
HintonJamesHeel
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 522
I don’t know what can be done but it’s scary when you look at other drivers. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that 1/3 of drivers are distracted by technology.
- Messages
- 2,372
True
Now decades ago it was not unusal for me to be commutting to work and the car next tome was driven by a women applying makeup as she drove
BlooVooDoo
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,539
It is a serious problem. I’ve seen people in cars that I know for a fact have not only Bluetooth, but Car Play or the Android version and yet the drivers are holding the phone in their hand talking to someone on FaceTime or resting the phone on the steering wheel and texting with both hands while steering with their wrists.
Of course the manufacturers tout Car Play and hands free this and that in the interest of safety, but some require multiple menus on a touchscreen to change the A/C or audio settings. I’ve not been at fault in an accident in 40 years. The closest I’ve come is in a rental car that required something like 5 different taps of the touchscreen to adjust the rear A/C.
BlooVooDoo
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,539
Technology that requires visual engagement is indeed dangerous, but there’s no defense against idiots. I’ve seen someone reading a Bible while driving.
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,921
I like it. And its not like the technology isn't available to limit the speed but also allow brief (10-20 second bursts) over the speed limit for emergency accident avoidance.
I could even see a manual override function that allowed for a speeding to the hospital type of exception but then you would need an explanation to law enforcement.
I could even see a manual override function that allowed for a speeding to the hospital type of exception but then you would need an explanation to law enforcement.
That manual override isn't worth much in a reactive situation.
I still get this computer interference in place of human judgment thing that makes me uncomfortable. It's not that I have some overwhelming respect for it but I damned sure do respect the right to have it. I don't mind monitoring speed but not a fan of forced outside control.
- Messages
- 2,372
Back in the 60s when you got on the WVa turnpike you got a computer punch card type thing
When you got off they could charge you based on where you got on based on that punch card
It also had a time stamp-and if you got to your off ramp "too quickly" they could give you a ticket
When you got off they could charge you based on where you got on based on that punch card
It also had a time stamp-and if you got to your off ramp "too quickly" they could give you a ticket
Last edited:
I have no doubt that speed traps exist, but where I live whenever the speed limit is changed the DOT and authorities post the reasons why. Without exception the limit changes have been tied to fatal or serious injury accidents on that stretch of road caused by excessive speed. Often the speed limits decrease on major roads when they enter areas that are prone to a lot of pedestrian traffic.
ChapelHillSooner
Honored Member
- Messages
- 834
I mostly keep between 5-7 mph within the speed limit on limited access roads. I've only gotten one ticket in the last 30 years.
The exception is when I am passing multiple cars and a faster car comes from behind and I can't immediately get over - especially if the faster car rides you tail. Then I will go whatever I need to go to get around the cars I am passing and move to the right.
This law seems incompatible with the idea that people can and do get tickets for impeding traffic in the left lane even when going over the speed limit. But that's incompatible with speeding laws already.
One pet peeve of mine is that there is no promise that if you are driving in the left lane that you can't be momentarily slowed down. If the car in front of you is passing and going over the speed limit and they get over whenever there is an opening, you have no reason to complain. The left lane is a passing lane not a promise to go as fast as you want without ever having to slow down.
The exception is when I am passing multiple cars and a faster car comes from behind and I can't immediately get over - especially if the faster car rides you tail. Then I will go whatever I need to go to get around the cars I am passing and move to the right.
This law seems incompatible with the idea that people can and do get tickets for impeding traffic in the left lane even when going over the speed limit. But that's incompatible with speeding laws already.
One pet peeve of mine is that there is no promise that if you are driving in the left lane that you can't be momentarily slowed down. If the car in front of you is passing and going over the speed limit and they get over whenever there is an opening, you have no reason to complain. The left lane is a passing lane not a promise to go as fast as you want without ever having to slow down.
- Messages
- 1,327
I’m surprised by how many drivers I see not using hands free technology.
I'd vote for this as law.
dukeman92
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,244
It's worse because there are more of them out there. I'm all for legislation that cracks down on the use of cell phones while driving... but the law in the OP seems dubious at best...
I got a ticket in NY for being on my phone while driving. It was on a city street, 35 mph signage. The call had actually begun before I even left the driveway... 4 mins down the road I'm wondering why i'm being pulled over - thinking broken taillight or something. It was simply cuz i had the phone up to my ear.
I don't like that law. A sneeze or changing the radio, changing the temperature, etc would've been more of a distraction than holding the phone to my ear. Heck, an actual passenger convo probably would've been more of a distraction. Yes, hands-free is an option, but bluetooth tech sucks.
I don't like that law. A sneeze or changing the radio, changing the temperature, etc would've been more of a distraction than holding the phone to my ear. Heck, an actual passenger convo probably would've been more of a distraction. Yes, hands-free is an option, but bluetooth tech sucks.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 7,811
I never understand the impulse for posters to criticize that which they don't understand. I don't know anything about ISA, as I just heard of it now. But generally speaking, people don't just build and design things for no reason. They don't put those ideas into law for no reason. Our current experience with the evangelicals and their idiotic ideas written into statute perhaps conditions us to think that most legislation is stupid, but I'm extremely confident that a bipartisan group of legislators in Washington State is going to get it right. Or, if not right, not hopelessly wrong.
Anyway, it turns out that ISA is not all that new and it has a track record. It's widely used in Australia. It appears to be mandatory for all commercial vehicles in the EU (post 2022). There have been many studies, it appears (and I'm extremely confident there have been many others not mentioned in the below article), and they tend to show that ISA saves lives.
en.wikipedia.org
Of course there will be instances when ISA inhibits a driver's reactions and perhaps contribute to an accident. If a baseball team had a lineup of all Ted Williams, there might be an occasion when they are facing a Mariano Rivera type and could really use a bunt single and a stolen base or two. But over time, the Ted Williams lineup will prevail.
My guess is that the instances where you need to speed up to avoid an accident are few and far between, and the accidents avoided are generally not deadly. Meanwhile, a large percentage of auto fatalities come from people -- e.g. Henry Riggs from the Raiders -- who are driving wildly over the speed limit. One dude weaving in and out of traffic at 95 can easily cause multiple fatalties.
What's the basis for that guess? Well, the studies seem to show that ISA is life-saving, by a considerable margin. So above is my intuition about why the tech works, but the starting point is the data.
Anyway, it turns out that ISA is not all that new and it has a track record. It's widely used in Australia. It appears to be mandatory for all commercial vehicles in the EU (post 2022). There have been many studies, it appears (and I'm extremely confident there have been many others not mentioned in the below article), and they tend to show that ISA saves lives.
Intelligent speed assistance - Wikipedia
Of course there will be instances when ISA inhibits a driver's reactions and perhaps contribute to an accident. If a baseball team had a lineup of all Ted Williams, there might be an occasion when they are facing a Mariano Rivera type and could really use a bunt single and a stolen base or two. But over time, the Ted Williams lineup will prevail.
My guess is that the instances where you need to speed up to avoid an accident are few and far between, and the accidents avoided are generally not deadly. Meanwhile, a large percentage of auto fatalities come from people -- e.g. Henry Riggs from the Raiders -- who are driving wildly over the speed limit. One dude weaving in and out of traffic at 95 can easily cause multiple fatalties.
What's the basis for that guess? Well, the studies seem to show that ISA is life-saving, by a considerable margin. So above is my intuition about why the tech works, but the starting point is the data.
Good post, super. The overwhelming majority of fatal accidents I have been to have involved excessive speed. Not going 5 or 10 miles over the limit, but going over 100 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone, running a red light at 70 miles per hour, and so on. There are people that drive like absolute psychopaths, and when these people crash they and others get hurt very badly. Innocent motorists don't expect to be clobbered by someone doing triple the speed limit. Hopefully the ISA makes its way to all 50 states sooner rather than later.I never understand the impulse for posters to criticize that which they don't understand. I don't know anything about ISA, as I just heard of it now. But generally speaking, people don't just build and design things for no reason. They don't put those ideas into law for no reason. Our current experience with the evangelicals and their idiotic ideas written into statute perhaps conditions us to think that most legislation is stupid, but I'm extremely confident that a bipartisan group of legislators in Washington State is going to get it right. Or, if not right, not hopelessly wrong.
Anyway, it turns out that ISA is not all that new and it has a track record. It's widely used in Australia. It appears to be mandatory for all commercial vehicles in the EU (post 2022). There have been many studies, it appears (and I'm extremely confident there have been many others not mentioned in the below article), and they tend to show that ISA saves lives.
Intelligent speed assistance - Wikipedia
Of course there will be instances when ISA inhibits a driver's reactions and perhaps contribute to an accident. If a baseball team had a lineup of all Ted Williams, there might be an occasion when they are facing a Mariano Rivera type and could really use a bunt single and a stolen base or two. But over time, the Ted Williams lineup will prevail.
My guess is that the instances where you need to speed up to avoid an accident are few and far between, and the accidents avoided are generally not deadly. Meanwhile, a large percentage of auto fatalities come from people -- e.g. Henry Riggs from the Raiders -- who are driving wildly over the speed limit. One dude weaving in and out of traffic at 95 can easily cause multiple fatalties.
What's the basis for that guess? Well, the studies seem to show that ISA is life-saving, by a considerable margin. So above is my intuition about why the tech works, but the starting point is the data.