CA bill to require all new cars to prevent them from going 10mph over speedlimit
A California proposal would require new cars to include electronic “governors” that prevent drivers from exceeding the posted speed limit by more than 10 mph, aiming to cut traffic deaths. Commenters weigh potential safety benefits against concerns about emergency situations, technical reliability of speed-limit detection, privacy and control, and unintended consequences like dangerous speed differentials on highways. Many see the idea as politically unlikely and better addressed through improved enforcement and infrastructure rather than hard technological limits.
Implementation & Reliability Concerns
- Many doubt cars can reliably know the correct speed limit in all situations.
- Problems cited: GPS confusion between stacked roads, tunnels, foliage, urban canyons, wrong map databases, and ambiguous or non-standard signs (e.g., “default speed limit” signs that look like actual limits, access-road signs visible from highways, multi-speed or conditional signs).
- Vision-based sign reading is reported as error-prone in fog, snow, glare, obstruction, vandalism, and complex signs (school zones, truck limits).
- EU-style systems that only warn (not limit) already misread signs in some areas, frustrating drivers.
Safety Benefits vs Emergency Use
- Supporters argue speeding is a major factor in deaths and injuries, especially for pedestrians at 20–35 mph, and that extreme “need to speed” scenarios are rare and often cinematic.
- Opponents highlight emergency edge cases: rushing someone to a hospital, evacuating disasters, avoiding sudden hazards, or needing extra speed to complete overtakes. Some share personal stories where going >10 mph over felt necessary.
- Debate over statistics: one side emphasizes high annual deaths where speed is a factor; the other demands data on harms from automated limiting and implementation failures.
Driving Culture & Risk
- Several criticize American (especially Californian) speeding norms and entitlement; others compare to Europe/New Zealand and find US behavior relatively courteous.
- Disagreement over whether stricter speed control is the highest-impact intervention versus issues like drunk/drugged driving, distraction, and poor road design.
Legal, Practical, and Edge Cases
- It’s a proposal, not law; some think it’s politically dead on arrival or mainly headline fodder.
- Questions raised about: operation on private property, racetracks, rural roads, new/changed roads, and out-of-state driving.
- Emergency vehicles are expected to be exempt; rural exceptions are suggested but unspecified.
- Some see fundamental risk in tying traffic to centralized speed databases or GPS, with single points of failure.
Unintended Consequences & Workarounds
- Fears of “rolling roadblocks” if governed cars cap at limit+10 while prevailing traffic goes faster, increasing speed differentials and risky interactions.
- Passing on two-lane roads may become harder for underpowered or governed vehicles.
- Some anticipate widespread hacking/tuning to defeat governors, with disagreement on whether inspections could detect modified firmware.
Alternative or Complementary Measures Suggested
- Hard top-speed caps (e.g., 85–100 mph) independent of posted limits.
- Stronger enforcement or legal changes on: red-light running, phone use, window tint, lifted trucks and bumpers, headlight alignment/aftermarket LEDs, DUI (including cannabis), and more frequent road tests for older drivers.
- Mandatory or incentivized dash cams and attention-monitoring or distraction warnings.
- Some propose focusing on cell-phone-related safety before speed governors.
Privacy, Surveillance & “1984” Fears
- Concern that GPS-based limiters would entrench mileage-tax tracking and enable remote control: OTA speed changes, remote immobilization or “driving” a car to a police station.
- Others see GPS-based limiting as a natural extension of existing tech (scooter geofencing, drone no-fly zones), arguing perfection shouldn’t be required to pursue safety gains.