Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope of the Virginia Law & Current Enforcement

  • Law applies only to repeat extreme speeders (e.g., >100 mph), giving judges the option to mandate an intelligent speed assistance (ISA) device at the driver’s expense, analogous to DUI ignition interlocks.
  • Many note Virginia already has harsh speeding laws (e.g., relatively low limits, aggressive ticketing, reckless driving thresholds), plus ALPRs and heavy revenue from traffic fines.

Arguments in Favor of Speed Limiters

  • Seen as a targeted, proportional alternative to full license revocation or jail, which can destroy livelihoods in car‑dependent areas.
  • Speed is strongly linked to crash severity; some studies cited suggest habitual speeders have higher crash odds even at the same speeds as others.
  • Supporters frame it as protecting others’ right not to be killed or maimed by drivers doing 100+ in 40–70 zones.
  • Comparison to mandated breathalyzer interlocks: they significantly cut DUI recidivism; similar “mechanical enforcement” for chronic speeders could be effective.

Civil Liberties, “Safetyism,” and Slippery Slope

  • Strong libertarian pushback: prior restraint on people for “capacity” rather than proven harm; analogy to seatbelt mandates and “safetyism.”
  • Fears that court‑ordered limiters on a tiny group will normalize built‑in, remotely controllable governors on all cars; once the infrastructure exists, scope-creep is expected.
  • Linked to broader distrust of US surveillance (cars as tracking devices, OTA updates, ALPR networks) and of vendors who profit from court‑ordered hardware (breathalyzer companies as cautionary tale).

Effectiveness vs Alternatives

  • Many argue the real problem is weak enforcement of existing laws: suspended licenses rarely stop people from driving; speeding, red‑light running, and distracted driving often go unpoliced.
  • Proposed alternatives or complements:
    • Harsher penalties for driving on suspended licenses (up to jail, vehicle seizure)
    • Much higher required liability coverage and stricter uninsured‑driver penalties
    • Automatic camera enforcement, but that raises separate equity and privacy concerns.

Technology & Failure Modes

  • Concerns about GPS/map accuracy (misreading side roads or school zones, tunnels, urban canyons), emergency situations, rental/borrowed cars, and hacking/spoofing.
  • Some suggest dynamic limiters with emergency overrides plus post‑hoc review (e.g., override allowed but triggers investigation or fine).

Broader Design & Cultural Factors

  • Strong theme that better street design (narrower lanes, traffic calming, protected bike/ped space, fewer car‑dependent land‑use patterns) would reduce dangerous speeding more sustainably than gadgets.
  • Comparisons to Europe/Germany: stricter licensing, better infrastructure, and cultural norms yield safer high‑speed driving than in the US.