The title should probably be updated to accurately reflect that this is a proposal. The way it's phrased makes it sound like it's a bill that has already been passed.<p>There are bills like this that have absolutely 0 chance of ever passing that are proposed all the time. Clickbait at its finest.<p>The fact he couldn't even get a second senator to co-sponsor the bill tells you that it's DOA.<p><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB961/2023" rel="nofollow">https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB961/2023</a>
I drove a moving van once between to major cities. It was governed not to go over 65. On some two lane roads I would run come upon a slower moving vehicle. If I tried to pass the governor would kick in and make it really dangerous to pass safely. I would have to sit behind the car for a long time going 50 in a 65 before there was a huge gap in oncoming traffic to be able to pass.
How, <i>exactly</i> would the car be expected to know the speed limit? What if the expected value is wrong? What if the database of speed limits is unavailable? What happens when a speed limit for a road changes? What about new roads? What happens when the car leaves California?<p>What if California moves? (Earthquakes and Landslides are common there) How is the car supposed to cope with moving roads and landmarks?<p>Is there some provision for over-riding the speed limiter in the event of emergency?<p>What if Loran-C* is no longer available? Or GPS, or GLONASS. What if the Russians, Canadians, Nevadans or others Jam the signal?<p>This bill strikes me as about as useful as the time my home state of Indiana tried to legislate the value of Pi.[1]<p>Edit: *Yes, I know there are no longer any reliable long range ground-based navigation systems, which is a huge problem. While LORAN-C has been discontinued, it has never been properly replaced.<p>Edit2: What about private property? If a parking lot has a posted speed limit, how does that information get into the database? <i>Should</i> it get into the database?<p>There are far, far too many corner cases to seriously consider using a technical solution to what is obviously a social problem.
The first thought that comes to mind is that this would be a big problem in situations that arguably warrant speeding, such as accelerating out of a dangerous traffic situation, evading pursuers, or transporting a passenger in a life or death emergency.
Seems like this bill was written to generate headlines more than anything else. There’s been a huge uptick in pedestrian/biker fatalities in my area (South Bay) over the past 5 years. Even in my neighborhood, a group of students got plowed through at a cross walk while they had right of way (my son bikes w/ them each morning, but was home sick that day; all lived, but bones broken and PT for some). Excessive speed was not a factor. In any event, very few of the pedestrian incidents were directly tied to speed. Lack of attention, not fit to drive (age), and DUI are almost always what’s listed in the police report.
Either way, if the goal is simply to throw some regulations for a technical solution at a complex problem, then maybe focusing on inattention/distraction would be more useful. For instance, I’d be okay with being nagged by a chime (like w/ unbuckled belt) whenever my attention was not sufficiently on the road.<p>Here’s my (biased) list of more productive suggestions to tackle:<p>- make it <i>legal</i> for LE to pull over and cite cars for front window tint dark enough that pedestrians/bikers cannot see the drivers eyes (it’s now common for soccer moms at pickup to be rolling with 15-20% on fronts). And FFS just go ahead and impound anyone with a dark tint on their windshield. If repeat offender, impound vehicle.<p>- Lifted trucks should require DOT-approved pedestrian-friendly bumpers or brush guards when driven on public roads. Additionally, inspect stamp during Smog testing to ensure they are DOT approved. If a lifted truck, or one w/o DOT-approved (off road) brush guard, is involved in accident that results in injury directly attributed to the modifications, charge owner with criminal negligence.<p>- Require DMV road test every 10 years for license renewal; every 5 after age 60, and every 2 after 80.<p>- Require cars to pass a basic headlight alignment test during smog testing. Aftermarket LEDs in halogen housings would be automatic fail. Registration cannot be renewed until corrected.<p>- daytime sobriety checkpoints in neighborhoods. It doesn’t even need to be a test / checkpoint. It’s insane how often I see/smell cars driving by my house w/ drivers vaping cannabis to “take the edge off” after work (or whatever I’ve been told).
Cars are already ridiculously expensive thanks to all the mandates and many cars are not sold in the U.S due to prohibitive regulations (I wish I could buy a new Land Cruiser 76), this will only make things worse.
What is the new cars endgame? Only the elites will be able to afford them?
Interesting idea. I think most people will hate it and there are many technological reasons for it to be problematic.<p>Can it be abused too? Say I have an old car without that limit, harass or attack someone then speed up by only going 15 over the limit? What about emergencies? What about motorbikes in that law?<p>A ton of unintended consequences to consider.<p>However, I don’t think any car needs to be able to go over certain speeds, and that could be a place to start. Would the limit be 90, 100mph?<p>Maybe get a way to unlock on a race track, but beyond that, some advertised top speeds are absurd.
The original title was better:<p>> California could require car ‘governors’ that limit speeding to 10 mph over posted limits<p>I’m not sure why op changed it to the more ambiguous<p>> CA bill to require all new cars to prevent them from going over the speed limit<p>The latter title could imply the bill had already been passed, whereas the original title makes clear that this is simply introduced legislation which may or may not pass
Is this determined by GPS data? Will it continuously update speed restriction data by road? Does it undo the governor if you're outside the state?<p>This is just unfeasible. Especially for the 2027 model year.<p>I've joked before that states will one day install devices for "microfines" -- eg, going over the speed limit for short sustained period results in $5 fine.
This won't pass. It's legal to go any speed you want on private property you own; a challenge at the CA Supreme Court would likely eviscerate any bill like this that were to pass. Enforcing speed limits isn't a trivial problem. It only seems like one if you understand it from the very limited perspective of merely knowing the limit (kinda) at any time; once you start enforcing that limit, you create liability and danger where previously there was none.<p>What about speeding to the emergency room? What about an open road on your own property within California's borders? What about a racetrack? There's just no amount of current infrastructure which can model this properly and without enormous holes, some of which would immediately conflict with rights most Americans consider sacrosanct.
Speeding is one of the factors, but there are also other factors, bad drivers, roads conditions, alcohol/drugs, phones, sleep, car condition, eyesight, mood …
American drivers' entitlement around speeding and other forms of unsafe driving is easily one of our least commendable qualities as a country. I'm not aware of any other developed country with a comparable culture of neglect; it's good to see a large state take steps towards addressing that culture.<p>There's a valid point to be made about automation being a blunt tool, versus stronger enforcement of existing laws. My only response to that point is that vehicle unsafety is, at least in my state, <i>remarkably</i> resistant to human enforcement: the people tasked with enforcing these laws are often the ones who feel most entitled to violate them[1].<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/16/nyregion/mathew-bianchi-nypd-traffic-tickets.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/16/nyregion/mathew-bianchi-n...</a>
Finally. There really hasn’t been enough developer interest around unlocking car PCMs and open-sourcing engine management software. A bill like this would take car tuning from a niche closet industry to a ubiquitous hacking community.<p>Most cars come tuned from the factory for use with 87 octane gas. Pumping premium (91+ octane) gas doesn’t typically confer any performance advantage due to the factory-locked PCM software. By unlocking and tweaking this software you can tune the hardware to benefit from higher-grade fuels, enabling better performance _and_ fuel efficiency/emissions. Disabling the speed limiter would become table stakes.<p>Passing this bill would backfire majorly and open a Pandoras Box of hacking advancement. What is niche now would become common practice for everyone who drives.
California's road fatality rates are entirely unremarkable among the 50 states[0]. In 2021, a little over 4k people in California died from a traffic-related accident, compared to over 10k in the same year from drug overdoses[1]. I think Sen. Wiener probably could have other priorities on his plate.<p>[0]: <a href="https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/States/StatesFatalitiesFatalityRates.aspx" rel="nofollow">https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/States/StatesFatalitiesFatali...</a><p>[1]: <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mortality/drug_poisoning.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mor...</a>
If CA is concerned about safety, how about cell phone jammers or screen blankers in all cars then.<p>(No I don't support either this or speed governors)
When autos are electric, it's just an OTA software update. (that you can't block)<p>Just wait a few years.<p>And "better yet" a speeding car can be remotely driven to the local CHP office, saving officers a stop or chase, and the driver can be booked, the in-car breathalyzer and drug detector read out (if not already done remotely.)<p>Welcome to your 1984 auto.