Big Brothers Next Way to trample on your liberty-- Speed limit controls in cars

[avxo]

Please give me a scenario, Tony.

Let's talk airplanes. For one thing, auto-pilot systems have been in use for decades, and planes (which already spend most of their time flying under the auto-pilot regime to maximize fuel economy) actively attempt to prevent human error as flight-control systems disallow pilot inputs that would cause an airplane to exceed its operational envelope. Auto-pilots even have the ability to land a plane - including cooperating with ATC.

Research has proven that flying under the auto-pilot is safer even during emergencies: Ace human pilots are, no doubt, amazing and can "out-innovate" a computer (think landing in the Hudson) but such emergencies are few and very far between and truly ace pilots are even rarer.

And yet, despite all that, planes include not only human pilots (which makes the rest of us feel warm and fuzzy) but also switches that allow those human pilots to turn off or override the much better and safer automatic pilot.

If this is the case in the much more controlled environment of commercial aviation, do you really think that the much more chaotic and insane automotive environment won't include an "override dammit!" Brightly colored switch?

fat people who eat themselves to death really only hurt themselves.

I can't fire a gun into traffic.  Why should someone be able to drive a half-ton truck, 115 mph.

Perhaps I'm driving the truck on private land? Or a track? But that's not important. The fact is this: It's true that the government can dictate the technical specifications of the cars that drive on its roads and it could mandated a "fixed top speed." However, unless the government is willing to prevent the registration and use of older vehicles the restriction won't matter. All that will happen is that the used car market will heat up, as people look for vehicles that suit their needs and demands and not the dicta of some bureaucrat.

By the way, this silly argument of "why should you have the right to do X" is flat out fucked up from the get-go. The question should be "why shouldn't you have the right to do X?"

I can see some situations where grown folk may even need to push it to 80 or 85 mph.  But honestly, can anyone list the situations where going OVER 100 mph is necessary?

"Necessary" is a loaded term. There are plenty of roads in the United Stares that can be safely traversed at speeds far above 100mph, and where massively increasing (or even lifting) speed limit makes sense.

Driving from Las Vegas to Reno or from Las Vegas to Phoenix there are many stretches of highway – effectively endless straights – where 65 and 115 are indistinguishable. By increasing speed and reducing the amount of time drivers spend behind the wheel, you reduce the number of fatigue related accidents (fatigue-related accidents outpace speed-related accidents by a factor of almost 6 when looking at highway and freeway incidents).

You suffer from the misconception that speed kills, just like you suffer from the misconception that guns kill. The indiscriminate and unsafe use of speed kills, just like the indiscriminate and unsafe use of gun kills. And you believe that since humans can't be controlled ex ante, the tool must be limited.

That's pretty fucked up.

[Jack T. Cross]

Let's talk airplanes. For one thing, auto-pilot systems have been in use for decades, and planes (which already spend most of their time flying under the auto-pilot regime to maximize fuel economy) actively attempt to prevent human error as flight-control systems disallow pilot inputs that would cause an airplane to exceed its operational envelope. Auto-pilots even have the ability to land a plane - including cooperating with ATC.

Research has proven that flying under the auto-pilot is safer even during emergencies: Ace human pilots are, no doubt, amazing and can "out-innovate" a computer (think landing in the Hudson) but such emergencies are few and very far between and truly ace pilots are even rarer.

And yet, despite all that, planes include not only human pilots (which makes the rest of us feel warm and fuzzy) but also switches that allow those human pilots to turn off or override the much better and safer automatic pilot.

If this is the case in the much more controlled environment of commercial aviation, do you really think that the much more chaotic and insane automotive environment won't include an "override dammit!" Brightly colored switch?

The very first thing I'd note, is that cars can't threaten to fall from the sky under malfunction.

(Your post brings up thoughts about liability though, and of course insurance interests will string along some manual controls greater than a simple brake, for awhile; but it's tough to envision the idea staying behind a certain curve for very long, especially where liability is concerned. The fact that a car can carry enough independent power to propel and maneuver itself, too, is something to consider.)

[tonymctones]

The very first thing I'd note, is that cars can't threaten to fall from the sky under malfunction.

(Your post brings up thoughts about liability though, and perhaps insurance interests will string along some manual controls greater than a simple brake, for awhile; but it's tough to envision the idea staying behind a certain curve for very long, especially where liability is concerned. The fact that a car can carry enough independent power to maneuver itself, too, is something to consider.)

planes cant threaten to do a number of things cars can do so your first point is moot

[Jack T. Cross]

planes cant threaten to do a number of things cars can do so your first point is moot

No, Tony. The point isn't moot.

[tonymctones]

No, Tony. The point isn't moot.

LOL yes it is there brain child

[Jack T. Cross]

LOL yes it is there brain child

Tell that to an insurance company, Tony.

[tonymctones]

Tell that to an insurance company, Tony.

that b/c airplanes can fall out of the sky, we need manual overrides in cars?

damn youre a tard

[Jack T. Cross]

that b/c airplanes can fall out of the sky, we need manual overrides in cars?

damn youre a tard

Honestly, Tony. I have absolutely no idea of where you're coming from or what you're talking about.

[tonymctones]

Wow, just go back and re-read the last few posts there brain child

[Jack T. Cross]

Wow, just go back and re-read the last few posts there brain child

I'd suggest you do the same, nitwit. You're so frantically jumping around from thread to thread, fighting with everyone in sight, you can't keep track of what you're doing.

Chill out, and get hold of yourself.

[tonymctones]

I'd suggest you do the same, nitwit. You're so frantically jumping around from thread to thread, fighting with everyone in sight, you can't keep track of what you're doing.

Chill out, and get hold of yourself.

thread to thread, Im posting in 2 threads right now LMFAO...

hahah goodness youre a moron...

[Jack T. Cross]

thread to thread, Im posting in 2 threads right now LMFAO...

hahah goodness youre a moron...

If you're going to do that, do it right.

[avxo]

The very first thing I'd note, is that cars can't threaten to fall from the sky under malfunction.

(Your post brings up thoughts about liability though, and of course insurance interests will string along some manual controls greater than a simple brake, for awhile; but it's tough to envision the idea staying behind a certain curve for very long, especially where liability is concerned. The fact that a car can carry enough independent power to propel and maneuver itself, too, is something to consider.)

Sure - cars can't fall out of the sky (only partially true - several cars did fall out of the sky in a James Bond movie and I have it on good authority that our armed forces routinely drop not only cars but entire heavily armored tanks from airplanes!) but so what? Things operate based on their design parameters. But that's irrelevant to the point I was making.

That point was two-fold: first that even with a well-proven and highly reliable technology (auto-pilots) in a much more regulated environment, manual overrides still exist by legal or regulation fiat; and second that the human occupants feel safer in knowing that a human can assume control in case of some nebulous, undefined emergency.

Self-driving cars are almost certainly going to be safer and more efficient than their human-operated counterparts. But that won't mean that override switches won't be present. They will, for a long time. Don't believe me?

Look at your car and ask yourself "what use is a mechanically activated emergency handbrake in an era of exceedingly sophisticated anti-locking brake systems with highly reliable hydraulics and features like assisted panic-braking?"

For two reasons: because people don't like to feel "out of control" and want something direct that a machine cannot control and because legislation changes very very slowly.

Beyond that, I agree that self-driving cars will result in a lot of court cases and legal filings.

[Jack T. Cross]

Sure - cars can't fall out of the sky (only partially true - several cars did fall out of the sky in a James Bond movie and I have it on good authority that our armed forces routinely drop not only cars but entire heavily armored tanks from airplanes!) but so what? Things operate based on their design parameters. But that's irrelevant to the point I was making.

That point was two-fold: first that even with a well-proven and highly reliable technology (auto-pilots) in a much more regulated environment, manual overrides still exist by legal or regulation fiat; and second that the human occupants feel safer in knowing that a human can assume control in case of some nebulous, undefined emergency.

Self-driving cars are almost certainly going to be safer and more efficient than their human-operated counterparts. But that won't mean that override switches won't be present. They will, for a long time. Don't believe me?

Look at your car and ask yourself "what use is a mechanically activated emergency handbrake in an era of exceedingly sophisticated anti-locking brake systems with highly reliable hydraulics and features like assisted panic-braking?"

For two reasons: because people don't like to feel "out of control" and want something direct that a machine cannot control and because legislation changes very very slowly.

Beyond that, I agree that self-driving cars will result in a lot of court cases and legal filings.

I don't doubt that a manual brake will exist for quite some time, avxo. Insurance concerns wouldn't allow otherwise.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe there will be an end to common licensing for public roads?

[tonymctones]

Sure - cars can't fall out of the sky (only partially true - several cars did fall out of the sky in a James Bond movie and I have it on good authority that our armed forces routinely drop not only cars but entire heavily armored tanks from airplanes!) but so what? Things operate based on their design parameters. But that's irrelevant to the point I was making.

dont say that, thats how he ended up chasing his tail for 2 hours.

[Jack T. Cross]

To act as though something that is supported by ground, is comparable to something that is not supported by ground or by anything else by aerodynamics, doesn't make sense. Not sure how I can make it any clearer.

[Jack T. Cross]

Going to call it a day, bros. Will catch you guys later.

[240 is Back]

I'm fine with someone going 200 mph on their own property.  Let her rip!

But IMO, anyone who drives 100 mph on a city street should just lose their licence.  And unless you have a preggo woman in the back or a big ass spider bite, if you're 50 mph over the limit... forget the piece of metal on the pedal... just pull their licence for 1-2 years.

[avxo]

I don't doubt that a manual brake will exist for quite some time, avxo. Insurance concerns wouldn't allow otherwise.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe there will be an end to common licensing for public roads?

Insurance concerns are not the issue - Federal regulations and people's desire for a manual backup are the issue. An Audi USA engineer I know told me that most "complaints" they receive about new cars are about newer vehicles is that "electronic emergency brake": people write in, concerned about what will happen in the case of an electical failure.

I don't believe there will be an end to licensing; I think that for the foreseeable future even self-driving cars will require a licensed driver behind the proverbial wheel for liability purposes. And why I don't think I'll be able to drive from Las Vegas to, say, Santa Cruz overnight and enjoy a good nap at the same time even after I get my fancy self-driving car in a few years. It will be illegal for a vehicle to operate in such a fashion.

Ultimately, however, I think that licensing drivers for vehicles will become a thing of the past, just how elevator operators have become a thing of the past. You'll just buy a car and the car will drive itself, no license required.

[avxo]

I'm fine with someone going 200 mph on their own property.  Let her rip!

But IMO, anyone who drives 100 mph on a city street should just lose their licence.  And unless you have a preggo woman in the back or a big ass spider bite, if you're 50 mph over the limit... forget the piece of metal on the pedal... just pull their licence for 1-2 years.

It's easy to come up with ridiculous counterexamples, like driving 100mph through a city or town. A city street is one thing. A highway or freeway, with restricted right of way and limited access, and other features designed to facilitate secure high speed travel is quite anothe thing.

Is there a reason why we should not be able to drive over 100 mph on some stretches of I-5 between San Francisco and Los Angeles? It's a separated roadway, with long stretches of straights and what few curves exist barely require one to turn their wheel.

Or stretches of highways between Las Vegas and Reno, where you can go for 300 miles without seeing anything at all.

I drove both these routes personally, and I can tell you that extremely high speed could be safely sustained by a less than mediocre driver given a properly operating vehicle. And those speeds would tremendously reduce the amount of time spent on the road which, by itself, can reduce accidents.

Modern cars are capable of exceedingly high performance all around. They can reach great speeds and cruise comfortably.

That some people misuse that capability isn't an argument against cars being able to reach those speeds or even against speed itself.

[240 is Back]

I'd be fine with certain lanes or stretches being 80 or 90 or even 100 mph limits...  3 lanes wide woudl be a good idea.  I'd probably avoid those stretches just because every idiot with a new car woudl be out there drag racing. 

I dont have a problem with the limit.  I just think once a person is reckless with a 1000 pound vehicle where he can kill others, they don't belong on the road.

[doison]

I'd be fine with certain lanes or stretches being 80 or 90 or even 100 mph limits...  3 lanes wide woudl be a good idea.  I'd probably avoid those stretches just because every idiot with a new car woudl be out there drag racing. 

I dont have a problem with the limit.  I just think once a person is reckless with a 1000 pound vehicle where he can kill others, they don't belong on the road.

To prevent one reckless person from driving crazy you think no cars should even be able to drive faster than 80 mph?

You're "fine" with all cars having speed governors that limit their top speed to 70-80mph...but then you lost two reasons where one might need to drive 100 mph (preggo and spider bite)?


That's just the worst kind of thinking.  "Because someone could be an idiot with respect to vehicle speed, NO ONE should have the right to high vehicle speeds."

When someone is an idiot, the proper response is never to trample on the rights and freedoms of everyone else--yet that is the kind of thinking that passes the 40,000 new laws that get put into effect every year in the US.

[Skeletor]

But IMO, anyone who drives 100 mph on a city street should just lose their licence.  And unless you have a preggo woman in the back or a big ass spider bite, if you're 50 mph over the limit... forget the piece of metal on the pedal... just pull their licence for 1-2 years.

Does a pregnant passenger make a car traveling at 50 mph over the limit safer than other cars going say 10 mph over the limit?

[240 is Back]

To prevent one reckless person from driving crazy you think no cars should even be able to drive faster than 80 mph?

I never said "no cars should be able to drive faster than 80 mph".

Does a pregnant passenger make a car traveling at 50 mph over the limit safer than other cars going say 10 mph over the limit?

Yes... I think a dad focused on getting moms to the ER before she pops will still be more focused and actually safe, than a 16 year old smoking pot, racing his buddies...

And I think in this age of medicine, reckless kids are way more common than last minute water bursts.  With today's hormone-fed fat babies, they gotta induce labor all the time now.  kids dont roll outta there like they used to

[JOHN MATRIX]

The bottom line is, any more steps in the direction of furthering government control and big brother type policies are a very bad and dangerous thing.