this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
350 points (95.3% liked)

News

23311 readers
4539 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 163 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (18 children)

Just glossing over implementation. So every car will have to have wireless communications of some sort? Will there be some government system that all California cars will have to be integrated with that tracks where they are at all times so the car can know the correct speed limit? A tracking system that surely would never be abused or turned into a surveillance device.

"I don't think it's at all an overreach, and I don't think most people would view it as an overreach, we have speed limits, I think most people support speed limits because people know that speed kills," Wiener said.

Not unless they think about it for five seconds.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 47 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Speed doesn't kill.

It's the sudden stop that kills you.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Be careful, or politicians are gonna draft a bill preventing your from applying too much braking force too quickly. Thats about in line with the logic on this bill.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 9 months ago

Next up, skin cancer:

Suns don't kill people. People with suns kill people.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Funny enough, they already did long ago. It's call ABS. :)

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Doesn't abs make you stop sooner than both slamming on locking braks or manually pumping them? Idk sounds like more of a sudden stop to me, congress gonna ban ABS next

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

ABS also shortens your stopping distance. At least good ABS does, originally it sucked.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

ABS is designed to prevent the wheels from locking up and skidding. This reduces the total braking force applied a bit, because it's quickly pulsing the brakes, but is safer because you still have a bit of steering control.

ABS does the same thing as pumping your brakes, just faster. And you don't need to and probably shouldn't pump the brakes on a car with ABS.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Skidding also reduces braking force though, just from a perspective of car vs road, not break pad vs rotor. Unless im mistaken, and aside from control, anti lock breaks bring the car to a stop quicker, presuming traction break.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You are correct. Anti-lock brakes emulate cadence braking, and are more effective than threshold braking, and far more effective than locking your brakes

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

ABS/pumping the brakes is implemented because sliding friction is less that static friction. It's why you can nudge something on a slope to start sliding and it doesn't stop but would have happily sat there before hand.

Your car wheels experience static friction because while in motion the patch in contact with the road isn't moving. Or at least they do until you skid.

So ABS brakes/releases to get a new round of static friction.

Pumping the brakes is probably a phrase that came from before power assisted brakes (when you were manually pressurizing the hydraulics) but still had relevance because it was also ABS.

[–] distantsounds@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] Guest_User@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Lol correct. Speed doesn't kill, acceleration does

[–] hobbit@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Belter slingshot racers know this all too well. NOTE: Spoiler for an episode in the Expanse which everyone should watch if they haven't already.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 10 points 9 months ago (11 children)

One of our cars uses GPS and a lookup to show the current speed limit on the dash. It's often wrong. This will not go well.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (3 children)

One way I could think to implement it without any tracking or data connection connection with no data being transmitted from the vehicle would be by placing infrared strobe lights periodically along the road, possibly at the same places we already have speed limit signs. The flashing is invisible to the human eye but could be picked up by cameras on the vehicle, vary the speed or pattern of the strobe to indicate a different speed limit.

Something pretty similar is already used by a lot of emergency vehicles to trigger green lights, just the arrangement is reversed with a strobe on the vehicle and a sensor on the traffic signal.

Of course such a system would potentially be vulnerable to things like power outages (strobe can't strobe if it doesn't have power) bad weather (heavy fog, or if the camera and/orr strobe are covered in snow,) and someone could potentially circumvent it by just mounting a strobe light on their car pointed at the camera.

You could probably address the snow/fog issue by locking the car to a lower speed if no strobe is detected, maybe 25 or 35mph, because in those conditions people should generally be driving slower anyway, and then you don't have the expense of needing to put strobes around lower speed areas. And the power issue could be addressed with the kind of solar panels and/or backup batteries that already power some streetlights and such.

And for those who tamper with the system to circumvent it, we're never going to stop speeders entirely, but we can increase the fines to make up for lost revenue to keep police departments happy, they make less traffic stops and rake in the same amount of money.

[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The infrastructure limitation could be resolved by using infrared reflectors along the road instead of lights. Have the car shine infrared light at the reflectors so it's cameras can read the code on them (like an infrared QR code, maybe?)

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

Blockage by other vehicles, weather wear, angle from the current lane, it’s fraught with problems.

[–] bob_lemon@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If we're going to use technically limitations on the vehicle side, we can simply continue to use optical recognition of speed signs instead of changing putting an IR transmitter on every speed sign. It's gotten really good in recent years.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

Apart from roads that don’t have speed signs…

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Nah don’t worry, they’ll use 2.4Ghz spectrum and drown out WiFi near a road.

[–] Hotspur@lemmy.ml 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I haven’t read the article, so just spitballing here: I have to assume the approach here is to electronically govern the engine to go no faster than the highest speed limit. I don’t know what the limits are in California, but where I live that’d mean the car would be limited to 80mph. If it was electronic, it could be adjusted if then limits were changed.

Otherwise, it’d be insane, and require the crazy infrastructure you describe. And they simply don’t have the money or the wherewithal to build an actual coverage that would allow the limiter to dynamically scale all the time.

Alternatively, I suppose you could imagine a hybrid system—ie an overall limited engine to the max limit, and then some sort of transponder that would throttle the limit down if you were near an important speed limit zone, like a school, which they could manage to deploy a transmitter at… still seems technologically challenging for the state to really pull off consistently though.

Either way, yeah not a fan or including more required tracking tech in vehicles. I don’t think I’d really hate a reasonably limited car—I really can’t justify needing to drive over 80 ever really, even in an emergency, but it would drive me insane to have the car just magically throttling down whenever it thought it was time to. See

[–] Hotspur@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

I read the article, it definitely doesn’t bother to think about how something like this would be implemented, but certainly seems to be referring to a dynamic Limiting system… good luck.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 5 points 9 months ago

Every car I've hired in the last ten years has the current speed limit displayed on the dashboard. It does not require the car to communicate any information, only to receive it.

That is a different question from how car manufacturers could abuse the requirement to get more data to sell, of course. But there's nothing in this bill that would require the car to collect any data that isn't already publicly displayed by the roadside.

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Will there be some government system that all California cars will have to be integrated with that tracks where they are at all times

We have that already. They are digital license plates. It's voluntary right now fortunately.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Folks… it’s available as a subscriptionnn!!!

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I really don't understand why this is a product at all. What value does it provide me for $250/yr?

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Saves a few seconds of applying registration stickers every year?

Anti-theft…

Kinda makes sense for fleet vehicles I think, where you’re already installing trackers anyway.

Privacy nightmare for personal vehicles!

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I'll buy the argument on a fleet vehicle. But I miss any reasonable use case that justifies the price for Joe Blow the consumer.

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago

or the car use gps, gps is not able to track you(at least not it alane), and you still know where you are

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There is already a good amount of wireless in most cars. We've had standards since the Bush administration for cars to wirelessly communicate with each other.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I personally can't wait to start hacking cars going by on the freeway to make their top speed a negative value.

That's going to be so much fun.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

Oh yeah, I know.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So Uber already does this. Yes, you need to have GPS enabled, but Uber can tell when you're speeding. Same with insurance companies and their apps. The technology to determine what street you're on, what the limit is, and how fast you're going already exists.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Both of those examples are irrelevant to some of us like myself who participates in neither of those. Those are not good excuses to limit anyone's freedom through legislation.

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Not Internet, that's too expensive.

load more comments (8 replies)