New CA bill would limit the speed of all vehicles to 10 MPH over the speed limit

[Hope232]

CA Senate Bill 961, introduced by Scott Wiener of San Francisco, would require new vehicles to install a governor device by 2027 that would limit it from going over 10 MPH over the posted speed limit.

I think this is a great idea and the kind of legislation we can expect from Democrats who care about public safety. This is what Democrats want from their government - to ensure safe living conditions.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. How is this to be implemented? NT

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. So the government can track your whereabouts. Not going to happen. NT

[mahatmakanejeeves]

16. Yeah, the abortion clinic.

Does the Fourth Amendment mean anything to you?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here's your original post, before you edited it:

Why? Going places you shouldn't? Besides, your phone is already being tracked.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

34. Have you ever been some place where you shouldn't have gone? NT

[mahatmakanejeeves]

40. No more calls, please. We already have a winner. NT

[Mr. Evil]

184. Technically,

it's private corporations that are tracking you. Should you break the law the government can access that information through the legal process if need be.

On the other hand, many small jurisdictions may be against this legislation because a significant amount of their revenue is derived from the issuance of speeding tickets and other traffic violations. Which they use to fund their communities and pad the budgets of their local governments.

[Happy Hoosier]

52. It happens I DO have a problem with that.

It's not because I am going places I shouldn't, but because it's none of the Governments business where I am unless they have a warrant. I see no reason to usher in a suveillance state.

[FoxNewsSucks]

85. Because OUR government IS supposed to stay out of OUR business.

The purpose of having a "Big Government" is to have power against big corporations and billionaires, that "we the people" don't have power to fight.

Once "Big Government" is finished regulating corporations, then maybe they can start adding to the massive amount of laws already imposed on us.

[Doodley]

97. Are you saying it's your business if you break the maximum speed limit by more than ten mph? Your business if you break

the law and endanger lives? What exactly is your problem? You want to be able to break the law?

[FoxNewsSucks]

107. You missed the point.

Also, not everything is black and white. There are many MANY parts of this country where 10 over isn't dangerous at all. In fact, the speed limit in many places is more than 10+ what it used to be, back when we were told going over 55 was "endangering lives".

In any case, you missed the point of that other reply and the post it replied to.

[ForgedCrank]

111. This is

a flawed and false premise for an argument.
He thinks the same thing that I do (best I can tell). I 100% agree with speed limit laws. I also 100% disagree with this method of collecting evidence.
It is intrusive and violates one the the primary protections afforded by The Constitution. There is no provision for enforcing the law "by any means necessary". We should know better.

[Doodley]

137. The consitution talks about vehicle speed limits?

[ForgedCrank]

147. That still

doesn't work.
If you don't know what The Constitution says, maybe you should try reading it.

[Doodley]

156. I've read it, thank you. I see nowhere that it talks about speed-restructing vehicals.

[ForgedCrank]

158. Well, seeing

that I never asserted that it included anything regarding speed limits, why are you arguing it?
You are claiming you've read it, but appear to be lost regarding it's actual content to which I am referring.
Or is it that you just think it's acceptable to subvert Constitutional protections if you simply agree with the goal in doing so?

[AKwannabe]

114. Uncalled for!

This is the gov imposing restrictions on people. The person is only asking how this would be implemented. I wanna know how the “governor” would know the speed limit…

So many ?
And yours border implying maj is a criminal and doing things they shouldn’t.
Not cool!

[Hugin]

10. Hard governors on vehicles are dangerous and regressive.

Especially when they are the exception.

They’ve been tried on fleet vehicles many times to shift liability.

[Hugin]

19. It's technologically backwards.

Punishing everyone based on the actions of a few. Like speed bumps.

[Hugin]

36. It's impossible to drive at the posted speed limit where speed bumps are present...

Plus, they are a distraction as each driver has to negotiate their way over individual bumps. Not to mention the wear on vehicles and their drive trains, brakes, and other components.

Having them costs everyone without due process.

Saving children is a strawman and doesn’t fall under my regression argument. Instead it falls under dangerous. Fleet vehicles with hard governors have MORE accidents. That’s why even garbage trucks don’t have them.

[FHRRK]

190. agree

Have seen many streets put them in to handle speeding, racing by kids. Issue gets replaced by kids speeding between the speedbumps so increased noise. Speed limit laws are in place, enforce the laws.

[Doodley]

101. Punishing everyone who wants to drive way beyonf the speed limit and endanger others? Really?

[Hugin]

128. Direct feedback speed limit signs are far more effective.

Fact.

Most people like to operate their vehicles safely and they don’t need anyone looking over their shoulder.

[Doodley]

153. I lived in England. I was allowed to ride a motorcyle at age 16, that's a year earlier than you can drive a car.

Because of my age, the motorcycle had to be no more than 50cc and speed restricted to 30mph. I never felt anyone was looking over my shoulder.

[Hugin]

160. Besides being a non sequitur...

I doubt you ever took your training vehicle out on a major street or expressway. So, there’s no comparison.

[rampartc]

56. the governing will be done digitally , probably based on gps data.

the same way speed and acceleration are controlled by your cars computer now.

[ripcord]

80. And if people don't want government GPS in their vehicle?

This is why the mileage tax will never go into effect, no one wants the government tracking their cars.

[Hugin]

127. Not to mention a privately owned insurance company that has nothing better...

To do all day than to think of ways to make my money, their money.

[brush]

185. Seems to me a 10-over governor will work about as well as the so-called self-driving cars...

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2024, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

that are always hitting things. Road surfaces vary all over the place so how and where are the sensors going to be installed for the governors to pick up on and regulated speed?

And sometimes more speed than 10-over is required...like passing on a two-lane road with an 18-wheeler fast approaching and you need to pass and get back in your lane.

This is a bad bill, too intrusive.

[Hugin]

188. Intrusive and expensive to implement...

For little gain.

As I point out below, most people like to operate their vehicles safely and within the law.

Direct feedback speed limit signs have proven very effective.

[brush]

189. The legislator is well-intentioned but one wonders if he's ever driven a car before...

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2024, 02:10 PM - Edit history (1)

as at times 10 mph over the speed limit is needed.

[LiberalFighter]

33. Nothing I see that indicates the vehicle will be tracked.

Just a device that limits the speed.

[sarisataka]

46. Intrinsically it would have to include tracking technology

in order to know what the speed limit is on the road you are driving. Depending on how that information can be accessed has potential 4A considerations.

Workaround would be to have a pre-set limit of 80 mph or whatever is 10 more than the highest speed. That would defeat many of the benefits however since people could still drive 80 on side streets.

[LiberalFighter]

50. My GPS knows what the speed limit is where I drive.

The same tech could be used.

[sarisataka]

53. That is how I assume it would work

My GPS turns my speed numbers red on the "very rare occasions" I go 5+ over the speed limit. Obviously it is tracking the road I am on so is aware of the speed limit. While primarily one way communication, there is the potential that data could be used to track me as well. I'm sure in the TOS I blindly agreed to there is some phrasing that I have agreed my location data has only limited privacy.

[ecstatic]

215. Yes, that or with cameras.

If I don't use GPS, my car captures the speed limit signs, but, just as with GPS, it can show the wrong speed limit at times (for example, if going through a school zone after the school hours).

Either way, I think it's a bad idea. I don't want my car making those decisions for me.

[ripcord]

84. The problem is that we are told never to trust our GPS

If it can give out wrong information how can they be trusted to do this on their own?

[Happy Hoosier]

55. The deivce would have to know where you are...

to know what to limit the speed to.

And such devices CAN be wrong. If the tracker thinks you're on the service road parallel to the Interstate, you might have a severely restricted speed.

[Disaffected]

75. Such a device does not necessarily mean

the government can track your whereabouts.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

78. How else would it work? NT

[Disaffected]

95. A "GPS" knows your location and speed,

which combined with the built-in road mapping (such as found on a Garmin for example) is all that would be required. GPS is one-way - there is no location data transmitted to anywhere.

The Garmin GPS I have now alerts when I exceed the speed limit so the technology is nothing special.

[ForgedCrank]

192. No, it

doesn't necessarily mean they will track you. But make no mistake, the car will have to know where you are at all times for this to work at all.
Now imagine Trump wins the election and Don Jr. is put in charge of the FBI. Bannon is in charge of the DOJ, etc etc on down the line.
Now imagine you are a woman and want to drive to get an abortion in TX using a car that is speed controlled by the government.

[Disaffected]

193. Of course the car would have to know

where it, and the driver, are - that's what a GPS does. A GPS however does not transmit this information anywhere so the "government" could not use that to track you.

I don't understand what you are getting at with the woman in a speed limited car - are you saying the government could somehow send a signal to your car to slow it down?

[ForgedCrank]

195. Any vehicle

with a factory GPS system is not just listening to sat timing in order to get your current location, it is also keeping a detailed history of where you have been based on this information. Given a foot in the door, this information can be collected and examined by government.
Don't think they will abuse this? Well I do, because history shows that they always do. Right now, when I press the post button, it is going through an NSA filter that is looking for whatever keywords it's been told to find. That fact isn't even disputed anymore. This speed limiting program will be no different, it's only a matter of time and corruption.
My point was that we always need to look across the fence and see who COULD be in power some day. That should be the level of scrutiny we apply to allowable government power and oversight. There are far more personalities that should never be trusted than there are those we could trust.
Once established, what if Abbot decides he needs to collect data and see who traveled to an abortion clinic? Think he won't do it or at least try it?

[Disaffected]

197. Is any of that in the proposed legislation?

If not, it's just the fallacious "thin edge of the wedge" argument.

[ForgedCrank]

200. Whatever you

think is appropriate.
I like to think things ALL the way through to their potential outcomes. In this case, it's almost predictable.
I mean, something such as civil asset forfeiture that is grounded in very sound reasoning could never turn out working against us, right? Na, government wouldn't do that sort of thing. That would be a wedge argument too.

[Polybius]

183. Ok, so you see that the bridge is starting to fall in your rearview mirror

Speed limit is 40, so you can't do the necessary 80 to make it. Oh well, right?

[RubyRose]

3. Modern vehicles could be done with software but

Probably not feasible on older cars.

[jimfields33]

60. If California pays for it. Ok.

If it’s up to the individual, you are punishing the working poor again.

[zeusdogmom]

67. The buyer pays for it because the cost will be passed on as part of the total cost of the car

[AKwannabe]

118. The cost WILL be passed to consumers

[mahatmakanejeeves]

68. Sure. NT

[jimfields33]

69. Reality the price would go up.

My point was that you’d like all old car fit with this (your previous post). I think that’s fine if the state pays for it.

[jimfields33]

89. Ok. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

In theory, I agree it’s ridiculous to have a speedometer that goes up to 200 MPH and up. I’m interested in seeing how they will implement it as well.

[MichMan]

210. The maximum speed present on a speedometer has nothing to do with the top speed of the car.

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2024, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

In addition, most cars are already governed to not exceed the speed ratings of the tires.

[jimfields33]

211. Thank you. Learn something new everyday here.

[niyad]

72. What colour is the sky in your world?

[FoxNewsSucks]

87. I think it's pretty rainy in that poster's world.

[niyad]

92. You are quite correct.

[Hugin]

141. The wedgies are out in force.

I had read there was going to be a push from the right.

[Hugin]

152. As I have already explained... It's not safer.

Democrats typically look at the science first.

[Torchlight]

168. An ironic assertion

Can't quite remember the poet's name.

The Walrus, he is an ugly brute,
Made entirely out of rubber,
Lounging on the shore all day,
Like discarded old whale blubber.

Sea Lion on the other hand,
Is arguably, I think quite cute,
Gliding along the beach at play,
In his slick grey leather suit.

[jimfields33]

213. Interesting

[Happy Hoosier]

163. Which means the buyer pays for it.

Manufactureres and dealers don't offer freebies.

[Happy Hoosier]

172. Quite so, but new cars are already incredibly expensive...

... I think mandating another cost increase will not endear our party to consumers, not to mention the people mad about the limit itself.

I wouldn't be that mad about the limit per se... I rarely drive faster than 10 mph over the limit, except on this one stretch of road here where there used to be a school. There is a stretch of the road where the limit is 25 mph because that's where the school was. The rest of the road is 50 mph. Nobody, and and I mean NOBODY drives 25 mph through that stretch... except when the cops put up their end-of-the-mponth speed traps. Gotta get those sweet, sweet quotas.

[mitch96]

79. I would think a gps speed sensor and attach that to a cruise control..

When the gps reads 10 over, then the cruise control would limit the speed to what the gps reads..
This would put a dent in those communities that make most of their money from speeders..
m

[Johnny2X2X]

4. People will revolt against this

Not that it isn't a good idea, it's just not an idea whose time has come yet.

[Arthur_Frain]

14. I don't understand why more here don't see this.

This story goes downhill fast, and it costs you tons with respect to engagement with the electorate.

[vanlassie]

134. And they will have a great reason to say

Dems want a nanny state. Not a good idea. Which rep proposed this?

[bucolic_frolic]

7. There are times when you need the speed to avoid accidents

I passed a merging tractor trailer and a crowd of traffic. A cop in an unmarked car picked it up and followed me, but because I immediately slowed to the speed limit after I passed the truck, he didn't ticket or stop me. He knew I did the safe thing.

We don't need overrides on our speed, except maybe over 85 mph.

[Johonny]

9. Just one more "smart" device to fail

And cost me 1000s to fix. Good incentive, but I think it's hard and costly to implement. Thus, no one ever has before.

[Happy Hoosier]

63. The money cost is NEVER immaterial....

We always balance competing interests. One of those interests is cost. If you can make a devuice 0.1% more safe, but the cost is 500% more, is that a cost you are willing to incur? Those aren't arbitrary numbers.... I work in aviation and we deal with numbers like that all the time. It usually possible to make things safer. But we always draw a line at what we're willing to pay for it...

And I'm a Democrat, and I reject the "no matter the cost" stuff. In fact, that almost feels a bit like you're trolling....

[Happy Hoosier]

110. Moving the goalpoats?

You said no matter the cost. But the cost DOES matter. Always has and always will.

You are free to support this effort.

I think it is a massive, unwarranted overreach and I think if Democrats ingeneral support it, it will hurt us.

[Happy Hoosier]

166. I won't call him a nut case, but I do think the proposal is utterly foolish.

We could probably save vastly more lives by limiting the speed limit on the freeways to 30 mph. Do you see that working out? I sure don't. I think Mr. Wiener has made a grave miscaluclation about the risk tolerance of most people.

[Johonny]

91. Exactly, plus they also cause problems

If you've ever had a sensor go out while driving, it's not fun. Lost a sensor on a BMW, suddenly the car wouldn't let me go over 35 while I'm on the freeway.

Lost a gas tank sensor on my Prius and it wouldn't start.

When they work, they can save lives, but if they fail . . . I doubt the legislator has done the math on cost and failure analysis.

[FoxNewsSucks]

124. Same here. I had a Chrysler 300M

Suddenly wouldn't shift out of 2nd gear. I was fearing a 4-figure transmission replacement, ended up being one of the speed sensors and only $50.

But I travel a lot, and was lucky that happened at home instead of being out west 200+ miles from the nearest dealer in a car that wouldn't get out of 2nd gear.

[Qutzupalotl]

98. You have very peculiar views about what Democrats stand for.

I have to wonder where you got them. Maybe lurk for a while and get a feel for what we really believe.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

112. Thank you. Well said.

If there's one thing I really dislike, it's someone coming on here and telling what I believe and don't believe as a democrat.

[EX500rider]

169. "If a child's life is saved by this device... saving lives no matter the cost"

Then we should outlaw private pools also then, right?

Every year in the US, 3,572 people die from drowning. Nine hundred and forty-five of them are children.

[EX500rider]

179. Most states require private pools to be fenced in, I know Fla does

But children still drown, so if you think "any price to pay for saving one life" shouldn't we outlaw private pools & public pools with no lifeguards? (like hotel pools)

[sarisataka]

12. I have always wondered why we insist on having cars

that can go double the highway speed limit.

Actually I haven't, they are cars and to Americans sacrosanct.

How many lives would be saved if this was nationwide? High speed chases would become history...

[sarisataka]

22. Interesting turn of a phrase

and it is interesting when the question of what one "needs" affects others how attitudes change.

There are other parallels, such as "if it saves one life" but I doubt it will persuade anyone.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

42. What engine do you have in your vehicle, the Toyota Matrix? NT

[mahatmakanejeeves]

62. 130 horsepower? That's rather excessive, isn't it? Who needs that much power?

Or do you have the hopped-up one, the one with 180 horsepower?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Matrix

Powertrain
Engine
1,794 cc (1.8 L; 109.5 cu in) 1ZZ-FE I4
123–130 hp (92–97 kW)
1,796 cc (1.8 L; 109.6 cu in) 2ZZ-GE I4
164–180 hp (122–134 kW)

[mahatmakanejeeves]

82. So, the same question then, why do you need that much power?

Wouldn't a less-powerful car have been a more responsible choice?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

88. So we can trust you to make the right choice.

It also depends on how I use that 123 HP - which is to say I use it responsibly ...

[mahatmakanejeeves]

122. What makes you unique? If we allow you to make that choice, shouldn't we allow others to make that choice too? NT

[FoxNewsSucks]

104. Good for you. Must we all join your church as well?

Would the world be better if Government made us all do and believe as you do?

[patphil]

17. I can't imagine the residents of California tolerating this. It's a super bad move for whoever champions it.

[patphil]

30. People will see this as just another way that government controls their lives.

Regardless of it's merits, it;s a political disaster that we simply can't risk right now.
It's a retirement decision for politicians who vote for this.

[haele]

59. I'm leary of this because it disabled the ability to react in an emergency.

It also messes with the ability to safely pass slow moving vehicles, which, if you live in a rural area of the state, is a situation that happens frequently, but not frequently enough that if you have a scheduled destination you have to get to, you would be planning your commute with an additional half hour to an hour to get to where you need to be, just because you may be stuck for 20 miles behind a truck hauling, say, livestock or construction equipment that has to maintain a below speed limit progress on the only highway in or out your location.
Or you may have a medical emergency in your house or with a pet, and the nearest first responder or ambulance is an hour away. You're going to drive as quickly as you safely can, and especially on rural roads, that can easily be more than 10 miles over a posted limit for a particular section of road.

Haele

[Doodley]

102. This outrage reminds me of anti-masking? As you say, it's to save lives. Nobody should be speeding anyway.

[Happy Hoosier]

120. See my post below... sometimes speeding can save lives. NT

[Happy Hoosier]

117. Here's one example from my own life.

My Dad was working in his workshop. He made a mistake and wound up seriously injuring his wrist. Amonst other things, he had cut his radial artery. There was a lot of blood. I applied a tourniquet and got him to the car. I drove... significantly ABOVE 10 MPH over the limit to the Emergency room. I picked up a cop on the way. When I rolled up on the ER entrance and he saw me pull my blood soaked Dad out of the car, his expression went from "You're in big trouble" to "OH SHIT! Let me help you!" in a split second.

I could not wait for an ambulance... my Dad would have bled out.
I could not dawdle at 30 mph through my neighborhood. My Dad would have bled out.
As it was, he was barely conscious when we got to the ER and the docs said it was a close run thing.

So that's just one time I've felt justified in violating the speed limit by a significant amount.

[Doodley]

145. I am glad it worked out for your dad. Google: smoking saved my life. Google: Seatbelt victims. Google: Covid shot death

[Happy Hoosier]

161. Yeah, thanks... Those are not even remotely comprable claims.

My claim is simple: I think there are times where speeding is justified. The fact that you'd be willing to sacrifice my ability to do what I did in the name of statistics is not of any interest to me.

If my Dad had died that day, it would have been of no comfort that statistically it was probably better.

Yes, that's an emotional response. Human's are emotional animals. We must consider those basic emootions in our calculations and risk assessments. We could all be much safer if we limited highway speeds to 30 mph. Do you see any circumstance where people would tolerate that?

[Doodley]

174. As I said, I am very pleased your dad made it. I don't see any human life as a statistic. Do you have anything you would

say to the tens of throusands of victims of speeding drivers?

[Happy Hoosier]

162. It was!

He was fine after a number of surgeries... he always have some damage in that hand afterward, but he lived!

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. Enjoy your stay. Nt

[mahatmakanejeeves]

23. Just for the record, what sort of vehicle do you own and operate? NT

[mahatmakanejeeves]

27. And where do you drive it? NT

[niyad]

66. "Is it cold up there in the moral high ground?"

[niyad]

100. Thank you for the best laugh I have had this morning. And do, please,

keep it up. I had a very difficult day yesterday, and need all the laughs I can get.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

131. If DU awarded a prize for "least self-aware post of the day," I'm sure that one would win it.

What? And the way you framed "moral high ground" so negatively, as if I'm judgmental. I'm anything but. I just believe in driving in a way that makes other people safe.

[niyad]

133. Exactly.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

24. How exactly would that work?

There are a whole lot of different speed limits, sometimes different ones on the same road. How will this technology know the exact speed limit exactly where you are driving?

[Voltaire2]

65. Current generation vehicle automation software

is really good at two ways of determining the speed limit in any particular area: gps + navigation maps, visual detection of and reading speed limit signs.

As vehicle automation becomes pervasive it does raise an interesting question: if the robot is speeding on its own volition, who is responsible, the occupant that isn’t actually driving, or the manufacturer that provided the autonomous driving system?

[WarGamer]

198. yup my car reads signs with a camera... cool stuff

[dchill]

28. "It's for your own good!"

[dchill]

38. Democrats as castor oil is not a good sell.

[Celerity]

123. great turn of phrase

[dchill]

135. Well, someone is not convinced.

[gay texan]

57. I smell pizza n/t

[niyad]

76. Now I am hungry.

[MichMan]

31. Attempting to complete a pass on a two lane road will be very dangerous.

[ProfessorGAC]

175. That Was My First Reaction

Now, I'm not the one to pass. Much more likely I'm doing the speed limit & someone wants to pass me.
But, if a rev limiter kicks in while they're passing, suddenly they can't get back into their labe as quickly as planned.
Now, I have to slow down to make room.
I'm With you. Sounds dangerous.
Maybe a bigger number over the limit might work because most people don't have to pass a car going 55 at 75. But, 19mph seems like it could cause as many problems as it solves.

[Silent Type]

35. Doubt Biden would want a governor on his Corvette.

[Silent Type]

144. I'm solid with Biden, but don't see him in a Prius, Chevy Volt, etc.

[Jirel]

39. Yet another "bright idea" that would keep me from ever moving to CA.

No thanks. I will not have a car that “phones home” for tracking, uses mandatory safety equipment like this, etc. I’m doomed to buying, refurbishing, and maintaining wonderful old classics from now on, but so be it. I refuse to even drive my friend’s car, which has all those garbage lane detection systems, automatic braking, etc. on there. As far as I’m concerned, it’s more dangerous for your car to be screwing with your driving and constantly giving the driver nag warnings, than it is to have people going more than 10 mph over the limit.

[Xoan]

41. Could make passing a challenge.

[gay texan]

44. Nope and i'll be one of the first to find a workaound

I smell pizza....

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

93. If this were to pass

Which I doubt, but if it does, there will be a fix to disable the governor within weeks of speed shops getting there hands on a car equipped with it. If it's hardware, it can be disabled and bypassed, if it's software it can be reprogrammed.

[CincyDem]

48. Why stop here...why not limit the speed of all vehicles to the speed limit.

Then we could eliminate all the dollars spent on speed traps throughout the state. If we're going to legislate to 10mph over, isn't that, in fact, redefining 10+ as the speed limit? If safe living conditions is 10+ over the speed limit, what isn't that the safe speed limit.



I'm sorry - this feels like an excessive, expensive and draconian response applied to over 30 million motor vehicles to eliminate an estimated 1,500 deaths attributed annually to "excessive speed" in california. Care about those 1,500 ??? Jack the fines for speeding up to $1,000 for the first offense and $5,000 for successive offenses within a 5 year period. That'll get speeder's attention without grabbing the entire state by the wallet.

[CincyDem]

64. Apologies - when you posted this in General Discussion, I didn't realize you intended it to be a CA only discussion.

There's a place for that here too...in the case of California the link is:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1040

When you post on a forum with a national (even international) footprint, you're going to get national (even international) opinions.

Personally, and I know we disagree, I do think this is a national issue because it will be used a ideological hammer to bludgeon democratic candidates across the country as an example of what those dem candidates from Iowa, Ohio, Michigan will do if elected. In today's world, we're all tied at the hip (or should I say cellphone).

But hey - what do I know...

[CincyDem]

142. At 47 posts, I thought that might be the case.

There are a lot of specialty forums that have great, focused discussions as well as helpful rules/guidelines that cover discussion expectations in those forums. With an OP, getting the right forum is a way to start the discussion/conversation you want to have with people who share the same interests.

Late Breaking News, General Discussion, and the Lounge are kind of like standing in the town square and screaming your opinion. Any idiot in the crowd...for example some dumb Bengals fan like me...can scream back. The forums are, in my opinion, more like standing up in a club meeting and voicing your opinion. There may be some disagreement but the range of conflicting opinions is probably a little tighter than in the town squares. Not that disagreement is good or bad...it all depends on the kind of discussion you're trying to start.

Anyway...must my 2 cents...welcome to DU...enjoy the time (and the screaming !!!).

[FoxNewsSucks]

116. Speed traps will never be eliminated. They're too profitable,

and that's the real bottom line - money.

They bleat about "safety" to get too-low speed limits imposed, then state and local governments clean up making millions in fine.

Along with the insurers, who raise the rates on the ticketed.

Just like the "war on drugs", traffic fines provide too much money and too many jobs to ever be done away with.

[Sympthsical]

73. I see we're playing Who Wants to Lose Elections?

[Torchlight]

96. Sounds really serious

Best of luck!

[Happy Hoosier]

121. We'll see if he can convince other Democrats to commit electoral suicide.

I doubt very many will take the bait.

[Chakaconcarne]

74. No thanks.. I have needed to go beyond that to prevent serious accidents...

for myself and others.

I hope it dies a quick death....

......and this is going to get framed as Dem big government and all that kind of BS.

[Doodley]

105. Please give an example. Thank you.

[marked50]

149. Plenty of examples in Posts Above.

[MineralMan]

103. Not a chance in Hell that this becomes law.

Many bills are introduced. Most go nowhere. This will be one of those.

[walkingman]

106. There appears to be a law in Texas that requires everyone

to go at least 10 mph over the speed limit and tailgate any car within sight.

[Celerity]

113. This is playing right into the hands of the RW attempts to universalise the false slur that all Dems are nanny staters

[The Mouth]

216. Not so false if we have enough morons to pass this

I swear, hubris on the part of our state Democrats is nearly as disgusting as when the Reps have their way.

Supermajorities *SUCK*; this is becoming a nanny-state more every year. Just because a person wants a union and doesn't want a chemical factory pouring whatever into the water or air doesn't mean we want the state to regulate everything.

[NoSheep]

115. God forbid I have enough time to change lanes for my exit before someone going 100 mph creams me passing on the right.

I'm all for keeping the highway safe for everyone

[EX500rider]

178. If someone is having to pass you on the right you were in the wrong lane

Fast lane & passing lane: Left
Slow lane: right

[WarGamer]

119. You could name the Bill... "Democrats never win another election again act of 2024"

It's a truly terrible idea.

[Celerity]

125. yep

[Celerity]

126. yep

[SpankMe]

138. Yeah, this is bullshit

I live in Cali, and this and this is some serious nanny state stuff. Plus, it's technologically very difficult to implement.

I've had to overtake another vehicles at highway speeds on short notice to avoid an accident. These events have taken me up to and past 10 mph over the speed limit. I need the performance to drive safely. If an internal mechanism inhibited my control inputs, than that would be a deal breaker for me.

Not only that, but it'll put a dent in the revenue that the state gets from giving out speeding tickets. CHP needs the fill work. This is worse than closing donut shops.

[Arne]

157. My SUV has a device that takes control

of the steering if a turtle is in the road.
It's me.

It will immediately put my car in the ditch.
But think of the Turtles.

[intrepidity]

143. Or, raise the fine for speeding

to 10% of net worth, something that might hurt.

[ebbie15644]

151. And this how

Dems lose

[Doodley]

164. This outrage reminds me of the fight against smoking laws, gun laws, seatbelt laws, motorbike helmet laws.

My mother was an ER nurse in England in the 1950s. She dealt mostly with bike accident and car crash victims. This is before crash helmet and seatbelt laws. She said I reminded her of another boy in her ward who had been riding at the back of a motorbike. She said he had brown curly hair and big brown eyes like me. He didn't make it. Literally, millions of lives have been saved worldwide with these safety laws. Smoking laws---many more have been saved. Stronger gun laws would also save lives. If you are going to be outraged, be outraged for the needless deaths and injuries. Be outraged at the drivers who speed and put lives at risk and get away with it to do it again.

[JustAnotherGen]

176. The

Will never happen in the original 13 states.

I've also seen how self-driving vehicles have failed - I'm trying to imagine a mix of these vehicles, self-driving and person acceleration/braking on I-78 or I-80 at rush hour.

My husband just bought a new to us truck - it will be the last one in his life (blacksmith so necessary to haul rod) -

Is the government going to pay to have these installed at the full cost? If CA state gov can't figure it out so that it is entirely at the cost of the Government - not going to happen anywhere else.

[doc03]

177. Thsts going too far, that is why people

hate California.

[doc03]

196. Why have an F150 EV with 1000 hp that does 0-60 in 4 seconds when you

can't go more 10 mph over the speed limit?

[bucolic_frolic]

180. Known in cities as "Carjackers' Prey"

Can't escape by flooring it because of the low ceiling.

[localroger]

181. This is a terrible idea and not mainly because of civil liberties. It's terrible because it won't work.

It can't work. With anything resembling today's technology, it will never work. That isn't to say it won't look like it's working; lots of tech does that, and it's usually worse than not working and not being used at all.

In order to regulate your speed the device must know where you are, without error, and it must know the speed limit where it thinks you are, without error. The permissible error on both of those estimates is zero if you don't want to kill people. The possibility of getting the error low enough for this is zero.

GPS isn't perfect. Radio waves get reflected off of buildings and landscape features, creating alternate paths which are the wrong length. It is path length to the satellite which GPS uses to locate you. The day your GPS thinks you are on the service road instead of the highway, something that has actually happened to me several times with my regular GPS, with this tech you get rear ended by a semi. Enjoy your high technology.

Your database of speed limits must also be perfect. For some time our company's insurance GPS tracker thought the speed limit through much of Birmingham was 60 where it was actually 75. Finally one day one of our techs actually stopped on the shoulder, climbed the speed limit sign, and took a picture of his GPS showing the wrong speed limit. These things happen frequently, more frequently on less frequently traveled roads. Look up "death by GPS." Often the magic box doesn't even know whether you're on a road.

The only way this works reliably enough to be better than nothing is if it is only enabled on roadways that directly report by some technology which isn't implemented yet what the speed limit is exactly where they are. There have been proposals for such highways to make self-driving cars more practical, but nothing has been implemented anywhere yet. It would ultimately require wiring up every road in the USA. The system would have to self-disable when not being driven on such a "smart" road. That is the only way to guarantee that every vehicle really knows where it is and every vehicle is given the same speed limit data. 99% isn't good enough. 99.999% isn't good enough when you find that you're the lucky .001% whose car thinks it's on the side road instead of the expressway.

This is a very stupid idea which only a very stupid, technologically ignorant person would even consider with the current state of the art. Whoever seriously proposed it should get a schooling in what the damn technology can actually do.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

201. Okay, but other than that, what do you think of it? NT

[NutmegYankee]

205. Well other than that...

How was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

206. Hahahaha. Terrific one-liner. I first heard it from my introductory chemistry instructor.

He taught at a community college. He was a fantastic teacher, hands-down my favorite. He died much too young.

That CC had a bunch of good teachers.

Thanks, and good evening.

[Polybius]

182. Fuck that shit

This has been a nightmare of mine since I started driving in the 90's. I've feared that one day, an abusive government would pass a law to monitor and restrict your driving and speed. Well, here it comes.

[FHRRK]

186. So a 20 year old college student is fleeing a rapist....

She has a new car the rapist has a old car without the technology.

someone trying to get someone to the hospital it 3:00 AM

paparazi chasing down a celebrity

driving down the 5 freeway and a bunch of drunk dragsters take over the freeway

[FoxNewsSucks]

187. Idiotic idea. Here's a better plan

Throw away all the radar and LIDARs, let the cops start ticketing the morons who aren't paying attention. That is the real cause of unsafe roads. I'd rather be passed by someone going 80 that is alert, phone down, and paying close attention to their driving, than have someone driving near me who is updating their tweets or facebook status or tiktoks or whatever the hell people are doing on their phones.

Do something about THAT, it's unsafe at any speed.

[Ferrets are Cool]

191. As much as I HATE speeders, this is utterly stupid.

[SYFROYH]

194. What the eff? Is this the Onion?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

203. It was a kind of plant. NT

[A HERETIC I AM]

199. Well, this thread is certainly entertaining!

LOL. 😂

[mahatmakanejeeves]

202. Nearly everyone sized up the OP right away as a plant. It looked like one of James O'Keefe's less successful new hires.

Project Veritas isn't sending us its best.

And good evening.

[A HERETIC I AM]

207. LOL....

Does Project Veritas have any actual "best" to send?



I just woke up! Working a night trip, so I miss all the good daytime stuff!

[NutmegYankee]

204. This is the worst bill I have ever seen proposed.

Holy fuck, what a terrible idea!

[krawhitham]

208. Unless the CA is going to provide free internet access for all vehicles made after 2026, this is not going to end well

There are two ways to do this:

1st
Have beacons along the road that put off a signal that cars can pick up to know the current speed. But this method would allow "hackers" to make simple devices that throw out new speed rate info. Back in the day, in electronics class, we build devices that would trigger radar detectors, when you fired it up you would see 1/2 mile of break lights instantly

2nd
GPS, but GPS needs updating. Every time there is road construction speed limits will need updated, and updating would require internet access. Forcing people to spend another $30-$50 a month just so CA can control your speed will lead to a metric ton of law suits.

[Hotler]

209. Scott Wiener tired of being flipped off and honked at for driving 10 under the speed limit in the fast lane

during his daily commute introduces CA Senate Bill 961. Quoted as saying,"that will show those sons of bitches."

[Captain Stern]

212. Why stop there?

Why not limit all vehicles to just 20 mph maximum? Just think of all the lives that would save.

That actually would save thousands of lives, but we just don't want to have to go that slow.

[ecstatic]

214. To be honest, I'm a little worried that legislators in California

Might be taking the blue mandate for granted. The state can always turn red. Please don't go too far. A lot of the ideas are great and really innovative but at a certain point they can go too far.

To address this idea specifically, the problem is most people will not have the latest car. People who lease or regularly swap out cars will have the cars with the latest technology but everyone else will still have the old technology. That creates a dangerous driving situation (in my opinion) because I think it's always best for people to drive with the flow of traffic.