Hacker News Reader

Comment by wffurr | Hacker News Reader

Kinda begs the question why cars can go over 100mph in the first place.

Also what the heck is with Newsom vetoing the passive ISA bill?

Because engines aren't designed to be run at max output. The fact that an engine can do 150 means it's a lot nicer to drive at 75. I've driven a car that has a top speed of 85 on a good day, with a tailwind and going downhill, and it sucked. Fine for city streets but in my state we have bits of highway that have posted speeds as high as 85 and realistically most people do 9-10 over on long roads outside cities.

Sure but electronically limiting that car to 80mph retains the “nice at highway speed” aspects while blocking the ability to go 120mph down I-95.

Well 80 would be a bad limit; there are roads in Texas posted 85 which means you can do 94 without even state troopers hassling you. I don't want a static limit because I can't go race, and I don't want a dynamic limit because 1. it's not perfect and I'd really chafe against being limited to 65 or 75 as a fallback, and 2. I don't trust the government that once tried to put in a nationwide 55mph speed limit for non-safety-related reasons, and 3. I hate prior restraint. I believe it's generally wrong to limit normal, law-abiding people because of bad actors. So, if your argument is "this might be practical to reduce collision deaths", I'm not going to agree with you on that, because "reducing collision deaths" isn't as important as my values.

This law isn’t prior restraint - the state is trying to g to install these in repeat offenders’ cars.

But, to that point, I mostly agree. I’d rather we hired some quality road engineers and urban planners who are willing to build roads and towns that aren’t car-dependent hellscapes.

I have less of an issue installing these in the vehicles of repeat offenders but much of the conversation here has been around more general installation or mandating of governors.

I doubt that existing areas are going to see that happen. Plus, I'd rather live in a totally car-dependent area because 1. it makes it harder for people I don't want to live near to move in. Lower crime, fewer cars on blocks in front yards, etc. and 2. I like having lots of space. I like having room for a shop/lab combo. I like having space for a full-size piano. I am not willing to surrender all that for the sake of "walkability". Also 3. it's 105F in the summer here. Honestly, I'm not much interested in walkable cities in this part of the country.

And out in the country, excessive speeding is less a problem. Fewer people to main and kill. Less density, so less chance hitting somebody’s stuff. Here in suburbia, designing it to be more walkable (or bus able) would give repeat offenders (speeding, DUI, whatever) another option vs driving.

Not seeing any argument for allowing the car to exceed 100mph on public roads regardless of what the powertrain is capable of.

People who want to go faster can trailer their race cars to a track.

VW and Audi MEB vehicles have an interesting difference: the ID.4 is limited to 100mph, while the Audi version with the same motors and platform is not limited to said speed.

From Newsome - "Federal law, as implemented by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), already regulates vehicle safety standards, and adding California-specific requirements would create a patchwork of regulations that undermines this longstanding federal framework. NHTSA is also actively evaluating intelligent speed assistance systems, and imposing state-level mandates at this time risks disrupting these ongoing federal assessments."

Makes sense, everything else that CA does essentially causes things to cost more. This would be another thing. Not everyone has your salary. That said, I agree with you, cars going that fast are driven by idiot teenagers (or people that want to be a teen again) and are endangering people.

> adding California-specific requirements would create a patchwork of regulations that undermines this longstanding federal framework

Which is exactly what California has been doing for decades.

That arguement doesn’t make sense. We (VA) already require ignition interlocks on DUI’s cars. This isn’t much different.

The vetoed California law would have required passive ISA, I.e. a dashboard light that comes on when it detects speeding, on all new vehicles sold in California.

High speeds are not an added feature of these vehicles. The power output required for practical acceleration also affords sustained high speeds. To prevent those speeds, manufacturers would have to add speed governors, which Americans would not be delighted to pay for (paying to have their freedoms restricted by bureaucrats, of course). Even if they came standard, speed demons could easily remove a governor.

My understanding is that vehicles already have speed governors that constrain them to the max speed rating of their tires.

(I'm not really trying to be on the opposite side of this argument though. If speed limits reflected the speeds most traffic goes, police themselves followed the speed limits, and disrupting traffic by dawdling in the middle lane stoned or with AI missile mode engaged were a law enforcement priority - then maybe I'd believe. But as it stands speed limits mostly serve as an excuse for cops to sit around playing candy crush until they selectively hassle a motorist)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com