Possible scenario: Speed-controlled cars become commonplace. Person driving along at speed limit approaches construction zone with reduced speed limit, but the car's tech isn't synced with that speed limit reduction. Car speeds through construction zone because the driver assumes their car will "max out" at the speed limit. Also, the science (not art) of passing a slow vehicle on a two-lane road demands exceeding the speed limit for safety. Even a simple 45mph car being passed by a 55mph car requires 9 seconds and an extra 4 seconds of buffer to not hit oncoming traffic, almost 1,900 feet to complete the pass safely.
Nope. Was chased by a maniac once. Needed every bit of speed my '64 comet wagon could produce. Took an on ramp at the last second as he tried to get in front of me to cut me off. Was trying to get to a police station.
Forcing more and more tech into cars by law has the shitty effect of increasing vehicle prices every single time. I mean it's not like car prices have already been jacked up from MSRP to the dealer throwing on extra fees in the tens of thousands.
What about needing a little speed to get up a hill. Or what if I’m being chased by a lunatic and I can’t speed away. What if I’m getting up to highway speed and it limits the power. Big no. America will never do this lol
Wait a minute, that was you I was chasing up the hill? Mistaken identity, sorry about that, I was trying to get a photo - I thought you were that Royal Prince Henry guy who married a chick from New Jersey.
My new car has "pre collision assist" and "automatic emergency braking", I have left it set to normal. My experience thus far is that this system causes problems. It has gone off a total or four times in six thousand miles. Every time was a false alarm. The most common event, 3 of 4, being a situation where the road goes thru a S curve with just a painted line between my lane and oncoming lane with a car coming the other way. As we each come out of the first part in our respective turns and start to turn the other way there is a moment were the cars are facing each other. This loud blaring warning fires off with a "Pre collision assist" appearing on the dash. This triggers a startle reaction causing me to physically jump in my seat and my eyes before I have a chance I am looking into the dash to find out what is going on. Just at the moment where it is most critical to have good lane control. I am not one to startle easily this is such an abnormal event. I know some drivers who would be so badly startled that they would lose control and end up crossing into the oncoming lane partially and cause a collision. The distance between my car and other car and moving in opposite directions the time to collision, if we were really going to hit each other, was under a second. There was no way any significant braking could be achieved. The only think worse would be if it automatically did fire the brakes which would further startle me and perhaps cause vehicle behind me to rear end me because of an irrational brake application. And it gets better, because the pre-collision assist because with the alert it will precharge and increase brake-assist sensitivity to provide full responsiveness when you do brake". Seriously so my brake is going to become hyper sensitive and just suppose I was intending to lightly touch the brake in the situation I outlined, suddenly it will be applied much harder than I expect which likely won't be good for maintaining control. The final bit of the pre collision assist/automatic emergency braking is to actually apply brakes if I don't. In my opinion this system only has real value when someone is moving slow in stop and go traffic and while texting on the phone. I can see how it might save a small bumper bump
@@brucebeamon5460 a Ford Bronco...I believe it les me turn it off completely but I haven't. I believe automatic emergency braking is becoming mandatory
Can you imagine how many people would be killed if they pushed the pedal to get out of the way of a crashing truck or something and the pedal pushed back and put you right in the path of it!
My wife has a 22' Compass Trailhawk and we've had to completely disable the Forward Collision Assist because it would beep like hell and deploy the anchors because the front sensors were dirty. This is winter in Canada, all cars are filthy from December till April! There's no way this is safer, slamming the brakes on and essentially declaring an emergency because the camera is dirty is not a smart thing to do. I have a 23' Challenger without the Technology Group and as such, it is missing all these additional ''safety'' features and I feel much safer in that monster of a car than I do our Compass Trailhawk.
Oh, here is a better idea: REQUIRE REAL CERTIFICATION TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE! The barriers to entry to obtain a license to drive is a joke. So many horribly unqualified drivers.
I don't think the active measure will ever be put in place, like cutting off power or pushing back on your gas pedal. That would be extremely dangerous in overtaking situations. Imagine you're engaging in an overtake and suddenly when you're parallel with the car you're overtaking, your power gets cut off and you're staring at a lorry coming to headbutt you.
Speed limits need to be revisited and adjusted for current cars, that being said, there's no reason to go over 100mph, most tires aren't rated much past that. If you're late, maybe you should have left earlier. Cars are not a constitutionally protected commodity, if they want to put limit chips in vechials, they will
Yes they're since cars are property.... which means Cars are constitutionally protected commodity... also you're most likely to get into an accident at 5-15mph. in heavy traffic . See it all the time on the freeway..... if you can't handle or do the correct maintenance on your vehicle you should not even be driving in the first place Go take the public toilet bus/train..
@@punker4Real The constitution proverbially weighs the scales of these rights against everyone fairly. Thus the slogan " scales of justice." Balance. Relatively cars were given more property rights than a horse or even walking. Thus laws like J walking came to protect car drivers. Now its concluded, you better stop for people standing at a cross walk. Property rights are protected , fairly and in balance. The OP is correct. The benefits of the majority out weighs the need of the few. You still have access to a car.. it will come with a cap on its speed if they want it, because its now technically feasible.
@@punker4Real You're correct. You can do pretty much anything you want to your property, including your car. Don't like catylitic converters? Pul;l 'em off! Don;t like seatbelts? Remove 'em. Same for airbags. The difficulty comes when you drive that car on *public* roads. Every vehicle operated on a public road must meet certain mimimum requirements to use those roads. That's the line where if you cross it, you're violating the law. Do whatever you want, but if you do certain things, you're no longer allowed to use public roads, that's all.
@@robertking3098 A Ford model T Doesn't have any of those items.. that is the minimum requirement for a car to be on the road.. There for your requirement fallacy is out the window.. it's about the money and nothing more TAX TAX TAX...collect collect collect..
When you become King and God Emperor what speed limits will you set? In my state the law requires that speed limits be set at the 85th percentile of the speeds at which traffic current moves. But there are both legal and practical exceptions, school zones for example and many residential feeder streets have lower limits. The speed limit on my street is 25mph. Some people think that signs must actually say 40 or 45mph. Those of us who live here and walk on the street or have pets or children who might cross the street would be asking for speed bumps if the city raised the limit. On the other hand I recall the 55mph limit days and that was ridiculous.
Speed limits are set by a mandatory engineering formula called the 85% percentile rule. Many jurisdictions are attempting to change this requirement - maybe you want to support that in your local jurisdiction while I oppose it in mine. These things are determined by federal and state laws and a fun book called the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices which I read for fun decades ago and recently to help other engineers test self driving car sensor algorithms.
@@punker4Real Around here on I-95, I-87, I-90 they just number the interstate with the same number as the speed limit to save on signage. There's a Rt 99 in Boston which takes this to the house as far as 2-digits go. (jk, sort of)
Here in Asia there's a wide variety of vehicles, from a whole family wobbling around on a moped to young guys in sports cars. We cope. I test drove a Ford Ranger truck, by the end of the test drive I was glad to get out of it. Every few moments it was binging, dinging or some other nagging chime, and 3 times in a short test drive it slammed the brakes on, causing people behind me to screech tires and beep at the unexpected and unnecessary "emergency" braking (because someone pulled into the lane ahead, with plenty of space).
i drove a kia with lane keep assist it tried taking me off a HOV off ramp at 80mph which would have meant me driving over the 60foot upper level bridge right back onto the freeway below
I have no problem with a notification telling me when I'm exceeding the speed limit. In fact, I'd actually like that. But to not allow you to exceed the speed limit is extremely dangerous. I cannot recall the amount of times that I've been driving where I've had to exceed the speed limit in the name of safety. In fact, I do it everyday on the way to work when trying to merge onto the interstate so I'm not slammed by a tractor trailer in the rear.
Agree. The next thing the Feds may want to do (as in the past) is limit Horsepower. As you mentioned, it is much safer to have the horsepower when you need it in an emergency or to merge into traffic.
Heck, back in the 70s I remember my folks having a car where you could set a speed limit on your speedometer and if you exceeded that speed, it sounded a buzzer. The only "advancement" in these systems is that the car knows the legal speed limit and sets it all by itself. Of course on our 70s Cadillac, we just set the speed limit at the speedometer maximum so that stupid alarm would never go off.
Legacy automakers absolutely LOVE when everyone chickenfights over auto policy instead of advocating for efficient mass transit. Most Americans have no idea how great the buses, trams, metros and trains are in other parts of the world. Too bad the automakers can't seem to understand that they could also be producing mass transit vehicles, like how Skoda builds trains, but oh well...
Other parts of the world have no idea the size of America and make ignorant statements about how we should use public transit. We are using it where it is economically viable. There definitely could be more routes if people would use them as well. However, it is too slow so few will do it. Also it is often still kilometers from the last stop to your actual destination. We have much harsher winters and summers making it difficult or unsafe to bike or walk it. Many places have few walking or biking paths making it dangerous to be in traffic. We have 100 years of bad zoning policies causing urban sprall making the population density too low to afford mass transit. It could be improved some, but it really will never be the same until you get to high population density areas. It would be massively expensive to fix many of the problems, as well as requiring a cultural shift in behavior. It just won't happen. I had one couple from the EU state they were going to hop on a train and visit a relative in Florida for dinner, currently in Utah. We had to explain to them that it was a three day journey by train...
@@court2379 This is just a bunch of excuses. Economic viability isn't the point of public transportation, the point is to get people from A to B so they can go about their lives without undue cost. That alone generates economic activity in other sectors. Many Europeans would laugh at the idea of not building public transit because of weather or population density; look at a country like the Czech Republic that has extensive, high quality transit networks running through all kinds of small rural locations, while also having Canadian-style winters
@@robroilen4441 OK so you ignored the important points. Population density, cost and distances. You cannot say economics doesn't matter. If a train ride between major cities in your country was €200 one way, or a bus ride intercity was €25, that adds up real fast if you do that frequently. People won't be able to afford to use it. If a train ride costs just as much as air travel, but is three times slower no-one will ride it. If it costs more than driving yourself, or is similar but takes longer and then you don't have a method to get to your final destination few will ride. Cost and performance absolutely matters. No-one will vote in a public project that the people refuse to use because it is more expensive or greatly more inconvenient. Europe has greater population density in cities, with lower distances between them. They have an established rail structure. It just isn't the same situation. And that is ignoring the massive hurdle of changing people's behaviors. Air travel made more sense historically in North America due to the distances/times and low fuel costs. This caused all the rail lines to be unprofitable and the land was sold off. Even if you could restore them, a limited number of people would use it, even at lower cost because even high speed trains are half as fast. Such a system would be incredibly expensive to rebuild. The people would revolt at the enormous cost. It won't happen in our lifetimes.
@@court2379 Even more excuses. With that attitude, of course nothing will ever change. I specifically pointed to a country like the Czech Republic because it's a great example of the complete opposite of what you're talking about - it has high quality, highly affordable rail connecting many low-density areas. Tickets for 6 hour rides are like $15. Amazing what you can do when tax revenue is put towards things that aren't the military.
@@robroilen4441 Subsidized by taxes. These things aren't free, or low cost. And if the US wasn't spending so much on the military you would be, so you're welcome.
I'll never buy a new car, I won't even buy a used car with anything like this in it. I have a 2006 Lincoln Town Car in mint condition, a beautiful luxury ride that does have some computer tech in it but no self driving anything other than cruise control. These new cars one thing breaks and half the car quits working or doing this actually causes something unrelated to happen, put your high beams on the horn starts blowing, put it in revers and the turn signals come on, they're far too interconnected. And you can't just replace anything, even just buying a new battery means you have to hire a tech to reset all kinds of computer crap. Not happening here. And I'm a computer programmer, but I wouldn't even touch this stuff with your ... well, you know the deal.
I hate to admit it, I held out for 13 yrs driving an 06 Scion 5 speed, but I love my new V8 Hemi Challenger. At first I didn't think I would be able to work on it but realized brakes, spark plugs, coil packs, etc are pretty much the same on this car as my older cars. I've disconnected the battery to install different seats and door panels - no big deal, works just fine. 117K on it and it still runs great!
As the owner of several high performance large engine cars, why do we need cars that will run 150 mph. Why do we need that kind of speed. There is absolutely no reason for that kind of speed and power. I would rather restrict stupid people from stupid decisions. If it was your family members dead, you may ask why too.
Why do we need big screen tv's. Why do we need houses over 2,000 square feet? Why do we need more food than what requires us to live. Once you limit people's freedom of choice, it's one more step towards communism or dictatorship or whatever you want to call losing your freedoms. Once one is taken away, it's a lot easier to start taking away others. Do you really want that?
My lorry is limited to 56mph.. very difficult to exceed the limit in built up areas so no chance of speeding. I've had people drive close to 50mph down a small residential street because they can.
Not sure what the signs are like in the States, but in Australia our speed sign are a red circle with the speed in the middle. When approaching a reduced speed zone we often have a cautionary sign warning of the new limit. This sign is a black circle with the speed in the middle. my friend has a car that does sign recognition but it can't tell the difference between the actual speed sign and the cautionary sign. Either the cameras and connected tech needs to improve or we need to redesign the caution sign so it is completely different ot the real speed signs. Replacing these nation wide would be an enormous cost.
I'm surprised it hasn't already happened. It will be inevitable. It will end police chases. There will be a day not far from now when people are surprised to hear humans actually controlled their own cars.
If it becomes a mandatory feature I'll just remove the computer and replace it with a simple circuit board that allows me to turn on vehicle and drive myself.
I believe this is the plot to I Robot, movie w Will Smith. He refused to ride in computer controled cars. Spoiler alert... The AI goes rogue ... Cant trust those self-aware computers!!
And I’m sure you are aware it will be in some way connected to your insurance company… and they will find a way to monetize this for them if you do that ( INCREASE YOUR RATES. )
So where would you draw the line? Should the government control: what we eat (no fatty foods, no sugary drinks, limited carbohydrates, no desserts); mandated exercise; must wear a mask when leaving your home; no walking outside if the temperature is below 32 degrees so you don't slip on the ice, etc?
Yes BigDaddy you are wrong. That is but a small percentage of those who own that type of car. I own two of those cars. They are a thrill to drive but, I drive them responsibly, as do most of those who own them.
Believe your eyes about what you see in the intersection/highway "sideshows". The cars are possibly stolen from responsible former-owners. It is a huge problem in southern USA from florida to california currently - performance vehicles are being targetted and stolen in 90 seconds using key-fob-programmers & OBD port.
Your "rights" to put everyone else at risk on *public* roads? If you want to race go on a racetrack. Driving on a public road, paid for by everyone, is subject to rules to ensure other's safety. If you don't like them, you're free to buy land and build your own private roads where you can do anything you want.
smoogie, how did racing become a subject here? But anyway, yeah, I priced out that private racetrack, its available on amazon but it costs 1 billion dollars.
But the govt has the power to set arbitrary limits? Sure you risk the possibility of a speeding ticket, but many like to be able to judge a safe speed for themselves based on their vehicle and conditions.
Not taking a side here, but can you offer even one authentic instance in which you drove 100mph on a public road for some purpose that was of such critical importance that it justified the risk to you and others? Please don't make it an anecdote about rushing to a hospital.
No. But that’s besides the point. The point is that because someone *might* go 100mph, everyone will now be under constant surveillance. That is an unreasonable level of overreach.
Fleeing a tornado. Fleeing from someone who means you harm (they are chasing you and trying to kill you or capture you). Because we live in a free country. If you think regulations make you safe, look at prison violence and deaths.
Can you justify driving a car at all, when you could be riding an eco-friendly horse? In my 30+ years of driving there have been literally countless times I've needed every ounce of acceleration in my car (or bike) to avoid accidents. Dunno about 100 mph, but yes, 6 emergency trips to hospital, once evading wannabe-gangsters after my friend, getting to my mother's house where a drug addict was trying to break in (I didn't beat the police by minutes but by an HOUR, due to some mixup...) and numerous other such things I've forgotten by now. Actually you've just reminded me of something very sad. You wouldn't believe it, so I won't be bother, but yeah, sometimes you need to speed.
There is nothing wrong with driving 100 mph. We should eliminate all speed limits and instead make it illegal to crash with prison sentences for doing so.
@@kirkjohnson6638 I pretty much agree with that. I'd even say make a minimum speed limit on faster roads, but yeah, many accidents are people "legally" doing the speed "they can" without thinking, such as in fog or snow, or simple rain, yet they'll do the same speed on a bright sunny day and get in other people's way. Take away "speed limits" and just make people liable for their driving. Suits me.
I had heard ALL vehicles produced STARTING ( wow it’s ALREADY HERE ) 2024 will have these so called safety programs imbedded in ALL NEW VEHICLES… hope someone here can speak on this that has the current knowledge to give US a a LEGITIMATE UPDATE
Ziggy, the speed limit on many USA highways is 80 mph, you should get out more often, see the world, live a little, try driving 80.1 or 80.2 mph, its awesome. Also I kindly defer to your detailed knowledge of other drivers' copulation statuses.
You don't have a right to drive in a way that endangers me. There are no rights on the road, it is a place where rules a laws are the way it works. Devising methods to enforce laws already on the books are NOT invading your privacy.
Remember the law says you are required to drive in the rightmost available lane wherever it is safely available, sluggo! If you drive in middle lane, other traffic is required to pass you on the right in most states on most highways. Be safe!
@@elias8040 I don't think you understand my point... when you have a car that will do 200 on highways, you have idiots that will do exactly that ~ putting every other soul on those highways at risk... no one needs a car that goes that fast - if they want to race and put lives at risk, that can be done on as racetrack with cars made for racing and not highway driving
Maybe other people think you don't need a car at all or maybe your tv set or other things you like. How would you like it if there were limitations on the food you buy? You see the path you are stepping on toward communism.
@@3644Darrell The food I eat is not killing others... if I watch a monster move on my TV the monster is not killing others... if some idiot is going 200 mph in his car he can kill not only himself... but multiple others on the roadway ~ You might want to change the path you are walking...
You complaining makes me laugh. This is the same arguments that truck drivers are making. Though to be honest, with 75 percent of truck-car interactions are the result of car drivers
Anyone who drives at speed towards a car in front, just to change lanes is a dangerous driver. It's obvious that you don't care about human life, just your own selfishness. These safety systems are being introduced because of arrogant self righteous people like yourself. Your attitude is no different to someone who drives under the influence, you don't care about anybody else.
No, that system is for distracted drivers, not those who are watching what they're doing and judging their speed and distance compared to other vehicles. When the vehicle decides to brake for you, or cut the power, that can be extremely dangerous. Actual last-moment auto-emergency braking is fine, but braking because the computer decides to based on speed limits is both a physical menace and an affront to human freedom.
Plenty of people have died in car accidents whilst being aware of their speed and distance. When you factor in dangerous driving, road rage, speeding deliberately, DUI's, drugs, criminals on the run, teenagers driving around showing off, these systems are there to try and mitigate pointless deaths. The sight of innocent kids crushed to death in a car crash, how much human freedom do you think they have left? Thousands of people across the U.S dying every year due to driving is also an affront to human freedom. @@bigglyguy8429
Says you. And therein lies the problem - what kind of puke IT programmer is writing the software that is going to make decisions about everyone's driving habits? And then AI will take over and I'm not impressed with AI technology and see it as a means to reach the goal of SOYLENT GREEN. Most of this so-called safety crap is being implemented by govt agencies so they can justify their taxpayer funded paycheck. I do care about human life, especially my own and want the ability to avoid the stupid behavior of other drivers. I've seen too many people behind the wheel who are so fat I can't imagine how they got in the vehicle. Then there are the idiots who are driving and looking down at their phone. These are the people that are making it difficult for everyone else. Driving is an important skill that I take very seriously and have developed over many miles and vehicles so I can avoid the careless drivers. You mention not caring about human life. It would be interesting to know what party you belong to.
@@bigglyguy8429have you ever driven with a speed limiter set? At any moment, you can floor the pedal and blow right trough it. And if the speed limiter would automatically set itself to the speed limit, personally I would use it most of the time, as most of the speed limits (at least where I am) are reasonable and I have no reason to go over them. But if there was no way to go over the speed limit without disabling some setting somewhere, then, and only then these system could be a danger. But I do not see this becoming a common practice, as at least with nowadays systems, there are still errors in knowing actual speed limits.
Possible scenario: Speed-controlled cars become commonplace. Person driving along at speed limit approaches construction zone with reduced speed limit, but the car's tech isn't synced with that speed limit reduction. Car speeds through construction zone because the driver assumes their car will "max out" at the speed limit.
Also, the science (not art) of passing a slow vehicle on a two-lane road demands exceeding the speed limit for safety. Even a simple 45mph car being passed by a 55mph car requires 9 seconds and an extra 4 seconds of buffer to not hit oncoming traffic, almost 1,900 feet to complete the pass safely.
We cannot allow this at all.
Nope. Was chased by a maniac once. Needed every bit of speed my '64 comet wagon could produce. Took an on ramp at the last second as he tried to get in front of me to cut me off. Was trying to get to a police station.
Forcing more and more tech into cars by law has the shitty effect of increasing vehicle prices every single time. I mean it's not like car prices have already been jacked up from MSRP to the dealer throwing on extra fees in the tens of thousands.
What about needing a little speed to get up a hill. Or what if I’m being chased by a lunatic and I can’t speed away. What if I’m getting up to highway speed and it limits the power. Big no. America will never do this lol
Wait a minute, that was you I was chasing up the hill? Mistaken identity, sorry about that, I was trying to get a photo - I thought you were that Royal Prince Henry guy who married a chick from New Jersey.
My new car has "pre collision assist" and "automatic emergency braking", I have left it set to normal. My experience thus far is that this system causes problems. It has gone off a total or four times in six thousand miles. Every time was a false alarm.
The most common event, 3 of 4, being a situation where the road goes thru a S curve with just a painted line between my lane and oncoming lane with a car coming the other way. As we each come out of the first part in our respective turns and start to turn the other way there is a moment were the cars are facing each other. This loud blaring warning fires off with a "Pre collision assist" appearing on the dash. This triggers a startle reaction causing me to physically jump in my seat and my eyes before I have a chance I am looking into the dash to find out what is going on. Just at the moment where it is most critical to have good lane control. I am not one to startle easily this is such an abnormal event.
I know some drivers who would be so badly startled that they would lose control and end up crossing into the oncoming lane partially and cause a collision.
The distance between my car and other car and moving in opposite directions the time to collision, if we were really going to hit each other, was under a second. There was no way any significant braking could be achieved. The only think worse would be if it automatically did fire the brakes which would further startle me and perhaps cause vehicle behind me to rear end me because of an irrational brake application.
And it gets better, because the pre-collision assist because with the alert it will precharge and increase brake-assist sensitivity to provide full responsiveness when you do brake". Seriously so my brake is going to become hyper sensitive and just suppose I was intending to lightly touch the brake in the situation I outlined, suddenly it will be applied much harder than I expect which likely won't be good for maintaining control.
The final bit of the pre collision assist/automatic emergency braking is to actually apply brakes if I don't.
In my opinion this system only has real value when someone is moving slow in stop and go traffic and while texting on the phone. I can see how it might save a small bumper bump
Thank you for that example/scenario. Very helpful to hear!
I’d like to know what year and make is your vehicle with this system ? … so I can AVOID ITS PURCHASE
@@brucebeamon5460 a Ford Bronco...I believe it les me turn it off completely but I haven't. I believe automatic emergency braking is becoming mandatory
Can you imagine how many people would be killed if they pushed the pedal to get out of the way of a crashing truck or something and the pedal pushed back and put you right in the path of it!
My wife has a 22' Compass Trailhawk and we've had to completely disable the Forward Collision Assist because it would beep like hell and deploy the anchors because the front sensors were dirty. This is winter in Canada, all cars are filthy from December till April! There's no way this is safer, slamming the brakes on and essentially declaring an emergency because the camera is dirty is not a smart thing to do. I have a 23' Challenger without the Technology Group and as such, it is missing all these additional ''safety'' features and I feel much safer in that monster of a car than I do our Compass Trailhawk.
Oh, here is a better idea: REQUIRE REAL CERTIFICATION TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE! The barriers to entry to obtain a license to drive is a joke. So many horribly unqualified drivers.
A few folks crap their pants now we all gotta wear diapers.....
You need a brain diaper.
One option to save on diaper costs is to identify as a non-pants crapper.
This has been in place on semi's for years now. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.
I don't think the active measure will ever be put in place, like cutting off power or pushing back on your gas pedal. That would be extremely dangerous in overtaking situations. Imagine you're engaging in an overtake and suddenly when you're parallel with the car you're overtaking, your power gets cut off and you're staring at a lorry coming to headbutt you.
Disband the Ntsb, close the epa as well. Might as well add on a few more 3 letter agencies as well.
My 2003 Astro Van has this feature.
Oh YOU ARE JOKING RIGHT ?
@@brucebeamon5460 It is an OEM feature, especially at 4500ft elevation 🤣
Speed limits need to be revisited and adjusted for current cars, that being said, there's no reason to go over 100mph, most tires aren't rated much past that. If you're late, maybe you should have left earlier. Cars are not a constitutionally protected commodity, if they want to put limit chips in vechials, they will
it isn't the ability of the car, it is the stupidity of the asshole behind the wheel.
Yes they're since cars are property.... which means Cars are constitutionally protected commodity...
also you're most likely to get into an accident at 5-15mph. in heavy traffic . See it all the time on the freeway..... if you can't handle or do the correct maintenance on your vehicle you should not even be driving in the first place
Go take the public toilet bus/train..
@@punker4Real The constitution proverbially weighs the scales of these rights against everyone fairly. Thus the slogan " scales of justice." Balance. Relatively cars were given more property rights than a horse or even walking. Thus laws like J walking came to protect car drivers. Now its concluded, you better stop for people standing at a cross walk. Property rights are protected , fairly and in balance. The OP is correct. The benefits of the majority out weighs the need of the few. You still have access to a car.. it will come with a cap on its speed if they want it, because its now technically feasible.
@@punker4Real You're correct. You can do pretty much anything you want to your property, including your car. Don't like catylitic converters? Pul;l 'em off! Don;t like seatbelts? Remove 'em. Same for airbags.
The difficulty comes when you drive that car on *public* roads. Every vehicle operated on a public road must meet certain mimimum requirements to use those roads. That's the line where if you cross it, you're violating the law. Do whatever you want, but if you do certain things, you're no longer allowed to use public roads, that's all.
@@robertking3098 A Ford model T Doesn't have any of those items.. that is the minimum requirement for a car to be on the road..
There for your requirement fallacy is out the window.. it's about the money and nothing more TAX TAX TAX...collect collect collect..
Make a product I don't like? Won't buy it. My Trans Am will last me the rest of my days. These suck up auto companies will just go bankrupt again.
WS6? stick? 🏎🚗
@@elias8040 yes and yes. All stock. 😁
another thing they will add to EVs..
My problem is that the speed limits are ridiculous. Everywhere I go it’s ‘35’. No one drives that speed, not the elderly not law enforcement, no one.
35 is there so they can charge you with more shit if you get in an accident at relatively low speed lol
When you become King and God Emperor what speed limits will you set? In my state the law requires that speed limits be set at the 85th percentile of the speeds at which traffic current moves. But there are both legal and practical exceptions, school zones for example and many residential feeder streets have lower limits.
The speed limit on my street is 25mph. Some people think that signs must actually say 40 or 45mph.
Those of us who live here and walk on the street or have pets or children who might cross the street would be asking for speed bumps if the city raised the limit.
On the other hand I recall the 55mph limit days and that was ridiculous.
@@fred1barb when there is no sign i go 55mph as that is the max speed with no signage
Speed limits are set by a mandatory engineering formula called the 85% percentile rule. Many jurisdictions are attempting to change this requirement - maybe you want to support that in your local jurisdiction while I oppose it in mine. These things are determined by federal and state laws and a fun book called the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices which I read for fun decades ago and recently to help other engineers test self driving car sensor algorithms.
@@punker4Real Around here on I-95, I-87, I-90 they just number the interstate with the same number as the speed limit to save on signage. There's a Rt 99 in Boston which takes this to the house as far as 2-digits go. (jk, sort of)
Here in Asia there's a wide variety of vehicles, from a whole family wobbling around on a moped to young guys in sports cars. We cope. I test drove a Ford Ranger truck, by the end of the test drive I was glad to get out of it. Every few moments it was binging, dinging or some other nagging chime, and 3 times in a short test drive it slammed the brakes on, causing people behind me to screech tires and beep at the unexpected and unnecessary "emergency" braking (because someone pulled into the lane ahead, with plenty of space).
i drove a kia with lane keep assist it tried taking me off a HOV off ramp at 80mph which would have meant me driving over the 60foot upper level bridge right back onto the freeway below
@@punker4Real As the young peeps say "Yikes!"
I have no problem with a notification telling me when I'm exceeding the speed limit. In fact, I'd actually like that. But to not allow you to exceed the speed limit is extremely dangerous. I cannot recall the amount of times that I've been driving where I've had to exceed the speed limit in the name of safety. In fact, I do it everyday on the way to work when trying to merge onto the interstate so I'm not slammed by a tractor trailer in the rear.
Agree. The next thing the Feds may want to do (as in the past) is limit Horsepower. As you mentioned, it is much safer to have the horsepower when you need it in an emergency or to merge into traffic.
That is complete BS
@@stuwest3653 good argument. I'm convinced.
Heck, back in the 70s I remember my folks having a car where you could set a speed limit on your speedometer and if you exceeded that speed, it sounded a buzzer. The only "advancement" in these systems is that the car knows the legal speed limit and sets it all by itself. Of course on our 70s Cadillac, we just set the speed limit at the speedometer maximum so that stupid alarm would never go off.
Brakes work in this situation too.. infact applying brakes or coming off the accelerator will keep you safe also.
I am generally on the side of safety regulations, but this sounds like a bad idea.
I would like to know who is pushing this.
You already know who is pushing it and why. Believe your intuition.
Too late! Aerodynamics already limit my shitbox to 70 going downhill.
try eco modding it you can get that baby to 88mph!
I sure am glad i have a stand alone ECU instead of the factory one.
VOTE TRUMP
Legacy automakers absolutely LOVE when everyone chickenfights over auto policy instead of advocating for efficient mass transit. Most Americans have no idea how great the buses, trams, metros and trains are in other parts of the world. Too bad the automakers can't seem to understand that they could also be producing mass transit vehicles, like how Skoda builds trains, but oh well...
Other parts of the world have no idea the size of America and make ignorant statements about how we should use public transit. We are using it where it is economically viable. There definitely could be more routes if people would use them as well. However, it is too slow so few will do it. Also it is often still kilometers from the last stop to your actual destination. We have much harsher winters and summers making it difficult or unsafe to bike or walk it. Many places have few walking or biking paths making it dangerous to be in traffic. We have 100 years of bad zoning policies causing urban sprall making the population density too low to afford mass transit.
It could be improved some, but it really will never be the same until you get to high population density areas. It would be massively expensive to fix many of the problems, as well as requiring a cultural shift in behavior. It just won't happen.
I had one couple from the EU state they were going to hop on a train and visit a relative in Florida for dinner, currently in Utah. We had to explain to them that it was a three day journey by train...
@@court2379 This is just a bunch of excuses. Economic viability isn't the point of public transportation, the point is to get people from A to B so they can go about their lives without undue cost. That alone generates economic activity in other sectors. Many Europeans would laugh at the idea of not building public transit because of weather or population density; look at a country like the Czech Republic that has extensive, high quality transit networks running through all kinds of small rural locations, while also having Canadian-style winters
@@robroilen4441 OK so you ignored the important points. Population density, cost and distances. You cannot say economics doesn't matter. If a train ride between major cities in your country was €200 one way, or a bus ride intercity was €25, that adds up real fast if you do that frequently. People won't be able to afford to use it.
If a train ride costs just as much as air travel, but is three times slower no-one will ride it. If it costs more than driving yourself, or is similar but takes longer and then you don't have a method to get to your final destination few will ride. Cost and performance absolutely matters. No-one will vote in a public project that the people refuse to use because it is more expensive or greatly more inconvenient.
Europe has greater population density in cities, with lower distances between them. They have an established rail structure. It just isn't the same situation. And that is ignoring the massive hurdle of changing people's behaviors.
Air travel made more sense historically in North America due to the distances/times and low fuel costs. This caused all the rail lines to be unprofitable and the land was sold off. Even if you could restore them, a limited number of people would use it, even at lower cost because even high speed trains are half as fast.
Such a system would be incredibly expensive to rebuild. The people would revolt at the enormous cost. It won't happen in our lifetimes.
@@court2379 Even more excuses. With that attitude, of course nothing will ever change. I specifically pointed to a country like the Czech Republic because it's a great example of the complete opposite of what you're talking about - it has high quality, highly affordable rail connecting many low-density areas. Tickets for 6 hour rides are like $15. Amazing what you can do when tax revenue is put towards things that aren't the military.
@@robroilen4441 Subsidized by taxes. These things aren't free, or low cost. And if the US wasn't spending so much on the military you would be, so you're welcome.
I'll never buy a new car, I won't even buy a used car with anything like this in it. I have a 2006 Lincoln Town Car in mint condition, a beautiful luxury ride that does have some computer tech in it but no self driving anything other than cruise control. These new cars one thing breaks and half the car quits working or doing this actually causes something unrelated to happen, put your high beams on the horn starts blowing, put it in revers and the turn signals come on, they're far too interconnected. And you can't just replace anything, even just buying a new battery means you have to hire a tech to reset all kinds of computer crap. Not happening here. And I'm a computer programmer, but I wouldn't even touch this stuff with your ... well, you know the deal.
I hate to admit it, I held out for 13 yrs driving an 06 Scion 5 speed, but I love my new V8 Hemi Challenger. At first I didn't think I would be able to work on it but realized brakes, spark plugs, coil packs, etc are pretty much the same on this car as my older cars. I've disconnected the battery to install different seats and door panels - no big deal, works just fine. 117K on it and it still runs great!
Manufacturers can create them. We can buy them as an option. It shouldn’t be mandatory
It not any more intrusion than sign beside road stating 55mph.
But signs do not apply your car's brakes.
I'm happy I drive an old PT Cruiser and don't have to deal with any of this nonsense
As the owner of several high performance large engine cars, why do we need cars that will run 150 mph. Why do we need that kind of speed. There is absolutely no reason for that kind of speed and power. I would rather restrict stupid people from stupid decisions. If it was your family members dead, you may ask why too.
Why do we need big screen tv's. Why do we need houses over 2,000 square feet? Why do we need more food than what requires us to live. Once you limit people's freedom of choice, it's one more step towards communism or dictatorship or whatever you want to call losing your freedoms. Once one is taken away, it's a lot easier to start taking away others. Do you really want that?
My lorry is limited to 56mph.. very difficult to exceed the limit in built up areas so no chance of speeding.
I've had people drive close to 50mph down a small residential street because they can.
Will the government limit the insane speeds of some Tesla models too?
Not sure what the signs are like in the States, but in Australia our speed sign are a red circle with the speed in the middle. When approaching a reduced speed zone we often have a cautionary sign warning of the new limit. This sign is a black circle with the speed in the middle. my friend has a car that does sign recognition but it can't tell the difference between the actual speed sign and the cautionary sign. Either the cameras and connected tech needs to improve or we need to redesign the caution sign so it is completely different ot the real speed signs. Replacing these nation wide would be an enormous cost.
most cars already have this because of tire rateing between 110 to 112 mph
I'm surprised it hasn't already happened.
It will be inevitable. It will end police chases.
There will be a day not far from now when people are surprised to hear humans actually controlled their own cars.
Fat chance. I'll never let a robot drive me around anywhere. I'm not so lazy that I need a robot to do something for me.
If it becomes a mandatory feature I'll just remove the computer and replace it with a simple circuit board that allows me to turn on vehicle and drive myself.
I believe this is the plot to I Robot, movie w Will Smith. He refused to ride in computer controled cars. Spoiler alert... The AI goes rogue ... Cant trust those self-aware computers!!
And I’m sure you are aware it will be in some way connected to your insurance company… and they will find a way to monetize this for them if you do that ( INCREASE YOUR RATES. )
@@brucebeamon5460 insurance companies will go out of business because there will be few if any wrecks
Big brother intruding - like wanting seat belts and helmets. And pesky safety features. Damn overreach.
So where would you draw the line? Should the government control: what we eat (no fatty foods, no sugary drinks, limited carbohydrates, no desserts); mandated exercise; must wear a mask when leaving your home; no walking outside if the temperature is below 32 degrees so you don't slip on the ice, etc?
@@VAFZone I think the guy is agreeing with you. Kind of hard to tell.
Yeah but all u see are people in that type of car driving like that am I wrong how bout the morons that do the take overs in intersections
Yes BigDaddy you are wrong. That is but a small percentage of those who own that type of car. I own two of those cars. They are a thrill to drive but, I drive them responsibly, as do most of those who own them.
Believe your eyes about what you see in the intersection/highway "sideshows". The cars are possibly stolen from responsible former-owners. It is a huge problem in southern USA from florida to california currently - performance vehicles are being targetted and stolen in 90 seconds using key-fob-programmers & OBD port.
Your "rights" to put everyone else at risk on *public* roads? If you want to race go on a racetrack. Driving on a public road, paid for by everyone, is subject to rules to ensure other's safety. If you don't like them, you're free to buy land and build your own private roads where you can do anything you want.
if you're scared DON"T drive simple as that
smoogie, how did racing become a subject here? But anyway, yeah, I priced out that private racetrack, its available on amazon but it costs 1 billion dollars.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. You do not have a right to drive and speed.
But the govt has the power to set arbitrary limits? Sure you risk the possibility of a speeding ticket, but many like to be able to judge a safe speed for themselves based on their vehicle and conditions.
I drive my shits like I stole it and always will. Can't put that shit on my order shit!!!!!!!
Japan does it.
The Japanere people are compliant people. They do whatever is needed to get along. It's a unique culture unlike any other place on earth.
Sounds like a good idea. The counter argument is "I want to drive in contravention of speeding laws!".
what about track days?
thats ok ill just take it off
Not taking a side here, but can you offer even one authentic instance in which you drove 100mph on a public road for some purpose that was of such critical importance that it justified the risk to you and others? Please don't make it an anecdote about rushing to a hospital.
No. But that’s besides the point.
The point is that because someone *might* go 100mph, everyone will now be under constant surveillance. That is an unreasonable level of overreach.
Fleeing a tornado.
Fleeing from someone who means you harm (they are chasing you and trying to kill you or capture you).
Because we live in a free country. If you think regulations make you safe, look at prison violence and deaths.
Can you justify driving a car at all, when you could be riding an eco-friendly horse? In my 30+ years of driving there have been literally countless times I've needed every ounce of acceleration in my car (or bike) to avoid accidents. Dunno about 100 mph, but yes, 6 emergency trips to hospital, once evading wannabe-gangsters after my friend, getting to my mother's house where a drug addict was trying to break in (I didn't beat the police by minutes but by an HOUR, due to some mixup...) and numerous other such things I've forgotten by now. Actually you've just reminded me of something very sad. You wouldn't believe it, so I won't be bother, but yeah, sometimes you need to speed.
There is nothing wrong with driving 100 mph. We should eliminate all speed limits and instead make it illegal to crash with prison sentences for doing so.
@@kirkjohnson6638 I pretty much agree with that. I'd even say make a minimum speed limit on faster roads, but yeah, many accidents are people "legally" doing the speed "they can" without thinking, such as in fog or snow, or simple rain, yet they'll do the same speed on a bright sunny day and get in other people's way. Take away "speed limits" and just make people liable for their driving. Suits me.
I had heard ALL vehicles produced STARTING ( wow it’s ALREADY HERE ) 2024 will have these so called safety programs imbedded in ALL NEW VEHICLES… hope someone here can speak on this that has the current knowledge to give US a a LEGITIMATE UPDATE
Good
Good. They should.
** F ** Anyone WHO Drives over 80mph on the Highways ! YEa We Need these Machines Governed !! If U want to Go Over 80 GET A Fing Plane !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ziggy, the speed limit on many USA highways is 80 mph, you should get out more often, see the world, live a little, try driving 80.1 or 80.2 mph, its awesome. Also I kindly defer to your detailed knowledge of other drivers' copulation statuses.
Sounds like you have extremely poor driving skills. Bet you are one of the people who camp out in the left lane on the interstate.
You don't have a right to drive in a way that endangers me.
There are no rights on the road, it is a place where rules a laws are the way it works.
Devising methods to enforce laws already on the books are NOT invading your privacy.
Remember the law says you are required to drive in the rightmost available lane wherever it is safely available, sluggo! If you drive in middle lane, other traffic is required to pass you on the right in most states on most highways. Be safe!
no one needs a car that goes 200 mph on the highway ~ I am all for this
Not to worry. 200 on highway is not a thing. Actual racecar or supercar will fly into the air at 200 mph over the tiniest bump.
@@elias8040 I don't think you understand my point... when you have a car that will do 200 on highways, you have idiots that will do exactly that ~ putting every other soul on those highways at risk... no one needs a car that goes that fast - if they want to race and put lives at risk, that can be done on as racetrack with cars made for racing and not highway driving
Maybe other people think you don't need a car at all or maybe your tv set or other things you like. How would you like it if there were limitations on the food you buy? You see the path you are stepping on toward communism.
@@3644Darrell The food I eat is not killing others... if I watch a monster move on my TV the monster is not killing others... if some idiot is going 200 mph in his car he can kill not only himself... but multiple others on the roadway ~ You might want to change the path you are walking...
@@nanaandpapashoemaker show us the 200 mph capable car on the road! Pics or it didn’t happen.
You complaining makes me laugh. This is the same arguments that truck drivers are making. Though to be honest, with 75 percent of truck-car interactions are the result of car drivers
Anyone who drives at speed towards a car in front, just to change lanes is a dangerous driver. It's obvious that you don't care about human life, just your own selfishness. These safety systems are being introduced because of arrogant self righteous people like yourself. Your attitude is no different to someone who drives under the influence, you don't care about anybody else.
No, that system is for distracted drivers, not those who are watching what they're doing and judging their speed and distance compared to other vehicles. When the vehicle decides to brake for you, or cut the power, that can be extremely dangerous. Actual last-moment auto-emergency braking is fine, but braking because the computer decides to based on speed limits is both a physical menace and an affront to human freedom.
You just suck at driving
Plenty of people have died in car accidents whilst being aware of their speed and distance. When you factor in dangerous driving, road rage, speeding deliberately, DUI's, drugs, criminals on the run, teenagers driving around showing off, these systems are there to try and mitigate pointless deaths. The sight of innocent kids crushed to death in a car crash, how much human freedom do you think they have left?
Thousands of people across the U.S dying every year due to driving is also an affront to human freedom. @@bigglyguy8429
Says you. And therein lies the problem - what kind of puke IT programmer is writing the software that is going to make decisions about everyone's driving habits? And then AI will take over and I'm not impressed with AI technology and see it as a means to reach the goal of SOYLENT GREEN. Most of this so-called safety crap is being implemented by govt agencies so they can justify their taxpayer funded paycheck. I do care about human life, especially my own and want the ability to avoid the stupid behavior of other drivers.
I've seen too many people behind the wheel who are so fat I can't imagine how they got in the vehicle. Then there are the idiots who are driving and looking down at their phone. These are the people that are making it difficult for everyone else. Driving is an important skill that I take very seriously and have developed over many miles and vehicles so I can avoid the careless drivers. You mention not caring about human life. It would be interesting to know what party you belong to.
@@bigglyguy8429have you ever driven with a speed limiter set? At any moment, you can floor the pedal and blow right trough it. And if the speed limiter would automatically set itself to the speed limit, personally I would use it most of the time, as most of the speed limits (at least where I am) are reasonable and I have no reason to go over them.
But if there was no way to go over the speed limit without disabling some setting somewhere, then, and only then these system could be a danger. But I do not see this becoming a common practice, as at least with nowadays systems, there are still errors in knowing actual speed limits.