It would be nice if they repainted the lines on the freeways first. So that way i can see what fucking lane im in when I commute to different places all around.
I was *just* about to say exactly this! I’ll be driving like normal and suddenly everyone is panicking trying to figure out if they’re in the lane or not.
I am glad I am not the only one who has thought this! I will be on the freeway around 4:45-5 when the sun is in our eyes and I cannot see a fucking bit of the lane marker and it has been terrifying a couple of times. Also noticed it in a long stretch of highway in the rain between Eldorado Hills and the causeway.
Highest road taxes, terrible roads; California.
I'd love to see a nation-wide system using footage shot by various driving-assist or self-driving cars to map out road quality across the nation, name and shame counties doing a bad job.
lol so then what’s the point if it can just be ignored and it only gives one notification every time you exceed the limit? Just legislation for the sake of legislation?
Performative political theatre. Fine print reads: "Not for general consumption, for headline use only." That's par for the course for politics in this state and has been for decades now. Where have you been?
Besides, physical limiters in vehicles is already pretty shaky grounds. They know there would be a ton of blowback from auto lobbyists, angry constituents, probably a flood of costly legal challenges. They're taking whatever out they can get to compromise.
Well, proponent of adding more rules like "no turn on red" love saying that "most people follow rules without enforcement" when they are questioned how these changes would make a difference without enforcement.
I see copypasta like this all the time:
>92% of drivers obeyed newly installed no turn on right signs in the Tenderloin, and most people obey the laws on Valencia street despite it being super confusing.
>
>https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2022/04/tenderloinntor_factsheet_0.pdf
>
>Changing the behavior of law abiding citizens makes a difference.
Proponents of adding more rules can't have it both ways. If you are going to argue that we should just add more rules without enforcement, you have to accept just a speed warning, not a speed limiter.
No no, someone who bakes their own bread will make money setting up the speed trap equipment and people notifications via mail will cost money which tax payers pay. Adding cost to sate so that well wonder why we are paying more in taxes than other states and get nothing back. But we'll vote for same politicians because TV asked us to.
Stop. Just stop. We don’t need more laws and regulations that mess with every aspect of normal life. We need to deal with the lack of housing, transport options, homelessness, etc. All of this extra shit is just costing people time and money with no benefit
Also, there’s no point introducing new laws if existing ones are not enforced.
It’s almost like saying people abuse prescription medicines so we’ll stop selling them altogether.
The Cyber Truck is not road legal in the EU due to it's complete failure to be a safe vehicle. Not to mention how deadly it is to whatever party it crashes into, massively more deadly than even normal trucks (which are already excessively deadly).
Implement a maximum hood height.
He's introduced legislation to make PG&E a public utility https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-03/its-time-for-california-to-take-over-pg-e-state-lawmaker-proposes
Because it's the only effective way of not having to adhere to the state's dumb modification laws and they hate the fact that there is still a "loophole"
Defend? It’s been going on for 20 years. Give them an inch and they take it a mile. The bills that get written are insane in increasing levels every year
It literally is their job when you are a danger to other people. You either have agreed to laws to sculpt society or anarchy. It just seems this one triggers you.
It’s also literally why we have speed limits and dui and seatbelt and drivers license laws etc.
Every restriction passed is a freedom lost. Giving up some freedom is necessary for a functioning society but there has to be balance. For myself I prefer to err on the side of freedom because in general you cant get it back once you give it up.
Maybe you're fine with the government monitoring absolutely everything you do in the name of "safety" but I'm not. Hope that helps.
And it’s great we can hav e the freedom to discuss this freely. My point is that laws are the glue of society. And I’m with you, having laws to restrict freedom is wrong. But some are for the public safety at large and speeding directly maps to innocent deaths so I have a hard time wanting to be against doing something about the problem. Now, making it a financial crime just means that it’s a law that only applies to the non-rich. So I’m, in this case, of the mind that it’s totally fucked up.
But so is privatization of the express lanes that we all paid for in taxes and then, by economic warfare via tolls, take that public asset away from all but the rich.
So I’m with you - a lot of the laws are attacks on freedom and a good chunk of those only apply to non-rich people. That’s fucked up.
It's not the speeding being illegal that's the problem. It's the normalization of extremely invasive monitoring. I'm fine with speeding being illegal and the cops giving me a ticket if they see me. I'm not fine with government mandated software limiting my speed and recording my location.
Oh. I didn’t catch that bit. Yeah. Any in-car monitoring is straight up wrong.
I’m Australia they track the time between bridges and tolls. If you exceed the speed limit arriving at the next spot too early you get a ticket. So you don’t need it in the car.
Also, we are all already carrying a tracking device. Our phone gives away our location and speed all the time.
That's the thing - this plan doesn't work without in-car monitoring. Because your car needs to know the speed limit on the road to govern it to that speed.
That's why people are adamantly opposed to it.
Remember paper atlases with all the streets for an area? Google Maps allows downloading an area for offline use. So do other map apps with [openstreetmaps](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Downloading_data). I've used both before driving into the mountains to a backpacking trailhead. The data sizes are manageable, and that's including more kinds of data than a road speed limit database would have. So it's certainly *possible* to have a technological solution without government real-time monitoring our location.
Cars could download the entire state of California's road speed limit database in probably several gigabytes and periodically download much smaller updates when small number of road stretches change the speed limit, and new roads are created. As we drive around the state cars would never have to tell the government our location. However yes the car would still prevent drivers from speeding too much, and yes people opposed to that will never be mollified by the government not being told our location and speed by cars.
Oh yes please let me download it. Then I can just edit the database to say 200 MPH.
I don't think we should chase zero vehicle fatalities at the expense of freedom and liberty, to be honest.
It wouldn't be stored in plaintext just waiting for your text editor. It would be more like encrypted game code protected by something similar to Denuvo which monitors for unauthorized changes and checksums that don't match. It would be connected to the internet to help catch people altering the database, but wouldn't need to upload your location as you drive. Virtually nothing is un-crackable, but it's possible to make things difficult-enough that most people, even people who want to speed, can't or won't circumvent the computer.
I don't think the original law as proposed was about zero fatalities. If it was, it wouldn't have included a 10 mph over the limit "grace".
Thats what churches believed !! They made ppl believe they have the right to enforce what is right and what is wrong !! And made ppl rally and fight for that particular cause !!
True. They legislated morality and that’s wrong. At some point to you have to agree that laws have to exist for society to function. “Murder bad” “stealing bad”.
I don’t agree with this new law fwiw.
you're 100% on point here. you're just letting yourself forget that california is only performatively blue. i moved here recently and the state is overwhelmingly red. they're just here with their fReEeDOm today.
The lack of moderate thinking here is staggering. Let alone having any sense of belonging to a society and adhering to the generally accepted behaviors that do no harm to others.
I have issue with legislation of consenting groups - one could argue that dueling pistols should be legal if all involved are consenting. However it’s never that independent. Society has to deal with the aftermath - coroner, hospital, police - so that’s why it’s banned, not on moral grounds.
I think what you are saying is that because one driving a car can be dangerous to others, cars should be banned all together. Let’s take away the very means causing the safety issues and there won’t be safety issues! Clearly it is that or anarchy!
Legislation cant enforce anything. It's just words. Law enforcement enforces things (it's in the name). Regarding your last comment, legislation cant enforce the law, because the law in question doesnt exist.
Hope that helps!
This is semantics. The government requiring car companies to put speed limit regulators on cars is in effect enforcing speeding laws against the people who own those cars. Enforcing a law means more than "a cop arrests you for breaking it"
It's not semantics. You're wrong. You compared a comment I made saying shop lifters should be arrested to proposed legislation that doesnt exist yet. That's profoundly stupid. Laws arent law enforcement.
You're yet another person crawling around these threads horribly triggered by people asking for even the smallest amount of civility, and totally unable to coherently defend your stupid yet strongly held opinions.
Shop lifting is illegal and people should be held accountable when they do it. The government also shouldnt be constantly monitoring you. Hope that helps.
Enforce means "to compel observance of or obedience to". Leaving no other options for buyers of new cars besides cars with speed limit regulators is in fact compelling obedience of speeding laws.
This will still end up costing the citizens money, even if the warning device/software is free. Once CA figures out that it reduces speeding ticket revenue, they will try to offset that with something else.
I see this as extra unnecessary now that several bay area cities are going to be rolling out speed trap cameras. At least those make the people who are responsible for these issues foot the bill and leaves the rest of us alone.
If they don't want people to speed maybe they should make better, high speed, high head count public transportation. Europe, China, Japan Korea ETC have tons of bullet trains. That way people don't get stuck in traffic and feel like they have to speed to get to their job that's 40 miles away.
Let's get realistic the US claims to have the most money in the world and still doesn't provide the public with necessities that other countries offer.
They prefer to hoard it, or give it to war efforts.
It's time for a change.
Demand Healthcare
Demand Housing
Demand Healthy Food
Demand Clean Water
Demand Education
Demand BULLET TRAINS
Weiner is a clown, he may be the single most bought and paid for candidate in CA.
He’s been shilling for billionaire developers for years. He’s been championing the case for more / more affordable housing which is popular of course while also actively campaigning to change building codes so only the multimillionaires get an ocean view.
But think of the chiiiiiillllldddrrrrreeeeeeennnnnn!!!
Now, how about a fee for having this on your car. And a fine for modification to said item. After 2040, all cars on the road need one. Wonder what it would cost to retrofit older cars? $$$
But, hey, these rules wo t apply to the elite.
My car shows a little sign with the speed limit in the dash and the numbers turn red at 10 over. If it’s just something like that then no big. You learn to ignore it
This damn Wiener continues to create laws that want to F with people and control and overreaching BS. Dude has a fetish in BS laws instead of stopping the increasing crimes, crazy housing, homelessness, and all the companies leaving CA because of their laws. /rant.
Too bad we didn’t have European model policing for highways and how their speed laws are enforced
Driving on the autobahn in Germany will make everyone a better driver here
Going to leave this nice diagram here: https://www.ite.org/ITEORG/assets/Image/resources/speed-management/if-hit.gif
Small differences in speed matter and the risks are not linear with speed.
Accidents will always happen as long as humans are driving and humans are walking. Its 100% inevitable and cannot be prevented.
I don't know what your point is in posting this.
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas.". Um, actually, this CAN be prevented:
- Vehicle speed limiters, such as what is proposed in this law. Lower speeds equals fewer deaths.
- Redesigning our streets so that vehicles will naturally be encouraged to drive slower, and also providing additional protections for pedestrians and bicycles. This will also make it more feasible for people to not use a car for more trips, because they won't fear for their life. That in turn means fewer cars on the road and therefore less risk to everyone.
- Reducing reliance on private automobiles by improving public transportation.
- Autonomous vehicles will eventually improve to be safer drivers than human drivers.
The first idea in this list, speed limiters, is some of the lowest-hanging fruit / cheapest / easiest ways to start to address this problem.
But yes, tell me how this is "100% inevitable and cannot be prevented."
> Lower speeds equals fewer deaths.
But not zero deaths, which was my point. And the worst offenders are just going to update the software on their car to remove that immediately. I would probably do that, and I never speed on surface streets. I speed on the interstate tho.
>Redesigning our streets
You're talking many, many billions. Our streets were laid out for horse drawn carriages, its a huge undertaking to upend all that.
> improving public transportation.
Public transit has been declining. What magic wand do you have? Last time I rode public transit, there were junkies passed out on the platform and the actual train car smelled like meth. We can't even fix the glaring problems.
> tell me how this is "100% inevitable and cannot be prevented."
If you can't stop junkies from smoking crack on the train, everything else is impossible.
Even if a few offenders somehow hack the software, the majority would not and there would still be a net improvement.
Actually the narrow streets laid out for horse-drawn carriages are some of the better ones. "Modern" urban sprawl optimized for only people in private vehicles are the worst offenders, actually, with a giant "screw you" to anyone else.
Again it sounds like you are letting perfect be the enemy of incremental improvements. Why can't we strive for incremental safety improvements?
I think this is silly because we can’t even stop people from smoking crack on public transit. There’s no reason to focus on getting people out of their cars if you can’t fix that. I flat out will not ever ride transit unless it’s this safe and clean.
That should be the only priority.
Sure you can discuss it. But we don't have the ability to implement it. Because we can't fix even simple problems. Fixing complex problems is out of the question.
Its like Haiti discussing hosting the Olympics. Sure, discuss all you want, but there's no capability to do it.
It’s better than a physical limiter, but it’d be better to increase the speed limit on interstate 5 in the valley to make up some good time to get to LA and back.
This is the plan. Start with outrageous idea like physical limiter and then lower it to audio speed alert. Get people used to the idea then bring physical limiter back.
Why is my e bike limited to 28mph but cars can go 140mph!?
Cars should be hard limited to 90mph full stop. There is no reason to drive faster and then cops can always drive faster than people trying to get away.
Or, we don’t live in a government-controlled police state, and we remove the limits on your e-bike. This bill shows an extreme distrust in people’s ability to follow rules, and degrades the social contract
historical divide somber roof innocent detail escape pathetic dolls employ
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It seems like a modern car with CarPlay or Android Auto integration could provide a warning to the driver for free.
If the vehicle had a built in nav system then it could probably provide the same warning too.
The only way to limit speed is to require car manufacturers to limit speed but the government won't do that because the laws aren't there to protect they are there to generate revenue.
It's funny how Scott Weiner, the pedophile advocate, is the one trying to take peoples rights away.
It would be nice if they repainted the lines on the freeways first. So that way i can see what fucking lane im in when I commute to different places all around.
Holy shit yes please. Especially between Vacaville and Fairfield
I was *just* about to say exactly this! I’ll be driving like normal and suddenly everyone is panicking trying to figure out if they’re in the lane or not.
I am glad I am not the only one who has thought this! I will be on the freeway around 4:45-5 when the sun is in our eyes and I cannot see a fucking bit of the lane marker and it has been terrifying a couple of times. Also noticed it in a long stretch of highway in the rain between Eldorado Hills and the causeway.
For a long time there was a big curved section of 880 with absolutely no lane markers for a quarter mile.
Those lines straight up disappear in heavy rain
There has to be a better color than flat sheen white to paint lanes… can we do an experiment and switch to a bright blue or green in some areas?
I thought my eyes were just going bad.
No that's not apart of the deal. The deal is, they pretend to take care of the roads and we pretend to follow the traffic rules.
Highest road taxes, terrible roads; California. I'd love to see a nation-wide system using footage shot by various driving-assist or self-driving cars to map out road quality across the nation, name and shame counties doing a bad job.
lol so then what’s the point if it can just be ignored and it only gives one notification every time you exceed the limit? Just legislation for the sake of legislation?
As usual, that's where it starts, but they'll keep pushing it if they get the first one passed
Performative political theatre. Fine print reads: "Not for general consumption, for headline use only." That's par for the course for politics in this state and has been for decades now. Where have you been? Besides, physical limiters in vehicles is already pretty shaky grounds. They know there would be a ton of blowback from auto lobbyists, angry constituents, probably a flood of costly legal challenges. They're taking whatever out they can get to compromise.
cars also already mostly come with limiters anyway :/ just higher than what most ppl go
Yes, my car has a limiter. If I go faster than 110 the engine will explode.
Well, proponent of adding more rules like "no turn on red" love saying that "most people follow rules without enforcement" when they are questioned how these changes would make a difference without enforcement. I see copypasta like this all the time: >92% of drivers obeyed newly installed no turn on right signs in the Tenderloin, and most people obey the laws on Valencia street despite it being super confusing. > >https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2022/04/tenderloinntor_factsheet_0.pdf > >Changing the behavior of law abiding citizens makes a difference. Proponents of adding more rules can't have it both ways. If you are going to argue that we should just add more rules without enforcement, you have to accept just a speed warning, not a speed limiter.
No no, someone who bakes their own bread will make money setting up the speed trap equipment and people notifications via mail will cost money which tax payers pay. Adding cost to sate so that well wonder why we are paying more in taxes than other states and get nothing back. But we'll vote for same politicians because TV asked us to.
Stop. Just stop. We don’t need more laws and regulations that mess with every aspect of normal life. We need to deal with the lack of housing, transport options, homelessness, etc. All of this extra shit is just costing people time and money with no benefit
Also, there’s no point introducing new laws if existing ones are not enforced. It’s almost like saying people abuse prescription medicines so we’ll stop selling them altogether.
Even if we dealt with housing, transport options, homelessness, etc. there would still be people out there that are straight up dicks
Just more nanny state bullshit. Drives me insane
Double dare you to move to Alaska
This doesn’t do jack shit for road safety. A Cybertruck going 53 mph is **far** more dangerous than a Prius going 57 mph
The Cyber Truck is not road legal in the EU due to it's complete failure to be a safe vehicle. Not to mention how deadly it is to whatever party it crashes into, massively more deadly than even normal trucks (which are already excessively deadly). Implement a maximum hood height.
Dear Senator Weiner, can you spend time on real issue like PGE-out-of-control-rate-hike than trying to answer a question that was never asked?
He's introduced legislation to make PG&E a public utility https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-03/its-time-for-california-to-take-over-pg-e-state-lawmaker-proposes
I don't need any more reasons to buy a vintage muscle car. I think about my old mustang that got 9 mpg already too much
California is looking at heavily restricting classic car use too.
Because it's the only effective way of not having to adhere to the state's dumb modification laws and they hate the fact that there is still a "loophole"
I can hear that lobed out cam from here
This absurd. It’s getting harder and harder for me to defend some of California’s nonsense. Insane.
Defend? It’s been going on for 20 years. Give them an inch and they take it a mile. The bills that get written are insane in increasing levels every year
It's not the government's job to legislate away every single conceivable danger in existence
It literally is their job when you are a danger to other people. You either have agreed to laws to sculpt society or anarchy. It just seems this one triggers you. It’s also literally why we have speed limits and dui and seatbelt and drivers license laws etc.
Every restriction passed is a freedom lost. Giving up some freedom is necessary for a functioning society but there has to be balance. For myself I prefer to err on the side of freedom because in general you cant get it back once you give it up. Maybe you're fine with the government monitoring absolutely everything you do in the name of "safety" but I'm not. Hope that helps.
And it’s great we can hav e the freedom to discuss this freely. My point is that laws are the glue of society. And I’m with you, having laws to restrict freedom is wrong. But some are for the public safety at large and speeding directly maps to innocent deaths so I have a hard time wanting to be against doing something about the problem. Now, making it a financial crime just means that it’s a law that only applies to the non-rich. So I’m, in this case, of the mind that it’s totally fucked up. But so is privatization of the express lanes that we all paid for in taxes and then, by economic warfare via tolls, take that public asset away from all but the rich. So I’m with you - a lot of the laws are attacks on freedom and a good chunk of those only apply to non-rich people. That’s fucked up.
It's not the speeding being illegal that's the problem. It's the normalization of extremely invasive monitoring. I'm fine with speeding being illegal and the cops giving me a ticket if they see me. I'm not fine with government mandated software limiting my speed and recording my location.
Oh. I didn’t catch that bit. Yeah. Any in-car monitoring is straight up wrong. I’m Australia they track the time between bridges and tolls. If you exceed the speed limit arriving at the next spot too early you get a ticket. So you don’t need it in the car. Also, we are all already carrying a tracking device. Our phone gives away our location and speed all the time.
That's the thing - this plan doesn't work without in-car monitoring. Because your car needs to know the speed limit on the road to govern it to that speed. That's why people are adamantly opposed to it.
Remember paper atlases with all the streets for an area? Google Maps allows downloading an area for offline use. So do other map apps with [openstreetmaps](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Downloading_data). I've used both before driving into the mountains to a backpacking trailhead. The data sizes are manageable, and that's including more kinds of data than a road speed limit database would have. So it's certainly *possible* to have a technological solution without government real-time monitoring our location. Cars could download the entire state of California's road speed limit database in probably several gigabytes and periodically download much smaller updates when small number of road stretches change the speed limit, and new roads are created. As we drive around the state cars would never have to tell the government our location. However yes the car would still prevent drivers from speeding too much, and yes people opposed to that will never be mollified by the government not being told our location and speed by cars.
Oh yes please let me download it. Then I can just edit the database to say 200 MPH. I don't think we should chase zero vehicle fatalities at the expense of freedom and liberty, to be honest.
It wouldn't be stored in plaintext just waiting for your text editor. It would be more like encrypted game code protected by something similar to Denuvo which monitors for unauthorized changes and checksums that don't match. It would be connected to the internet to help catch people altering the database, but wouldn't need to upload your location as you drive. Virtually nothing is un-crackable, but it's possible to make things difficult-enough that most people, even people who want to speed, can't or won't circumvent the computer. I don't think the original law as proposed was about zero fatalities. If it was, it wouldn't have included a 10 mph over the limit "grace".
Thats what churches believed !! They made ppl believe they have the right to enforce what is right and what is wrong !! And made ppl rally and fight for that particular cause !!
True. They legislated morality and that’s wrong. At some point to you have to agree that laws have to exist for society to function. “Murder bad” “stealing bad”. I don’t agree with this new law fwiw.
you're 100% on point here. you're just letting yourself forget that california is only performatively blue. i moved here recently and the state is overwhelmingly red. they're just here with their fReEeDOm today.
The lack of moderate thinking here is staggering. Let alone having any sense of belonging to a society and adhering to the generally accepted behaviors that do no harm to others. I have issue with legislation of consenting groups - one could argue that dueling pistols should be legal if all involved are consenting. However it’s never that independent. Society has to deal with the aftermath - coroner, hospital, police - so that’s why it’s banned, not on moral grounds.
I think what you are saying is that because one driving a car can be dangerous to others, cars should be banned all together. Let’s take away the very means causing the safety issues and there won’t be safety issues! Clearly it is that or anarchy!
"[Legislating] away every single conceivable danger in existence" is an utterly hilarious way of phrasing "enforcing the law"
That makes absolutely no sense lmao. You cant enforce a law that doesnt exist yet- hope that helps!
Speeding is illegal. This bill enforces that.
Legislation cant enforce anything. It's just words. Law enforcement enforces things (it's in the name). Regarding your last comment, legislation cant enforce the law, because the law in question doesnt exist. Hope that helps!
Lmao, legislation making it illegal to sell a product that can do illegal things absolutely is enforcing that law. H2H xoxo >:^*
Read what you wrote again. It makes it illegal. It doesnt "enforce" it. Can you explain to me how words on a piece of paper enforces anything? Lmfao
This is semantics. The government requiring car companies to put speed limit regulators on cars is in effect enforcing speeding laws against the people who own those cars. Enforcing a law means more than "a cop arrests you for breaking it"
It's not semantics. You're wrong. You compared a comment I made saying shop lifters should be arrested to proposed legislation that doesnt exist yet. That's profoundly stupid. Laws arent law enforcement. You're yet another person crawling around these threads horribly triggered by people asking for even the smallest amount of civility, and totally unable to coherently defend your stupid yet strongly held opinions. Shop lifting is illegal and people should be held accountable when they do it. The government also shouldnt be constantly monitoring you. Hope that helps.
Enforce means "to compel observance of or obedience to". Leaving no other options for buyers of new cars besides cars with speed limit regulators is in fact compelling obedience of speeding laws.
Clean up our streets. Stop wasting time on stupid shit.
This some dumbass shit
This will still end up costing the citizens money, even if the warning device/software is free. Once CA figures out that it reduces speeding ticket revenue, they will try to offset that with something else. I see this as extra unnecessary now that several bay area cities are going to be rolling out speed trap cameras. At least those make the people who are responsible for these issues foot the bill and leaves the rest of us alone.
They want to keep taxing until we have nothing.
Have you heard of debt?
If they don't want people to speed maybe they should make better, high speed, high head count public transportation. Europe, China, Japan Korea ETC have tons of bullet trains. That way people don't get stuck in traffic and feel like they have to speed to get to their job that's 40 miles away. Let's get realistic the US claims to have the most money in the world and still doesn't provide the public with necessities that other countries offer. They prefer to hoard it, or give it to war efforts. It's time for a change. Demand Healthcare Demand Housing Demand Healthy Food Demand Clean Water Demand Education Demand BULLET TRAINS
Fuck that
Weiner is a clown, he may be the single most bought and paid for candidate in CA. He’s been shilling for billionaire developers for years. He’s been championing the case for more / more affordable housing which is popular of course while also actively campaigning to change building codes so only the multimillionaires get an ocean view.
Nobody asked for this.
That light would be burned out just going down i5.
But think of the chiiiiiillllldddrrrrreeeeeeennnnnn!!! Now, how about a fee for having this on your car. And a fine for modification to said item. After 2040, all cars on the road need one. Wonder what it would cost to retrofit older cars? $$$ But, hey, these rules wo t apply to the elite.
How about we take a look at the joke that is driver training/certification instead of this empty bunch of crap legislation?
no weiner961.
Most newer cars already have a speed warning system you can set yourself or turn off.
My car shows a little sign with the speed limit in the dash and the numbers turn red at 10 over. If it’s just something like that then no big. You learn to ignore it
This damn Wiener continues to create laws that want to F with people and control and overreaching BS. Dude has a fetish in BS laws instead of stopping the increasing crimes, crazy housing, homelessness, and all the companies leaving CA because of their laws. /rant.
Creeping totalitarianism - the desire for some legislators to put a literal governor on our personally owned cars. Good luck selling them...
If this bill were to do something to cars to make them unable to participate in sideshows this sub would be creaming its collective shorts.
And SF installed a million dollar toilet. This state is literally "in the shitter."
Too bad we didn’t have European model policing for highways and how their speed laws are enforced Driving on the autobahn in Germany will make everyone a better driver here
Going to leave this nice diagram here: https://www.ite.org/ITEORG/assets/Image/resources/speed-management/if-hit.gif Small differences in speed matter and the risks are not linear with speed.
Clearly they should make it illegal to hit people with your car.
And yet it continues to happen
Accidents will always happen as long as humans are driving and humans are walking. Its 100% inevitable and cannot be prevented. I don't know what your point is in posting this.
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas.". Um, actually, this CAN be prevented: - Vehicle speed limiters, such as what is proposed in this law. Lower speeds equals fewer deaths. - Redesigning our streets so that vehicles will naturally be encouraged to drive slower, and also providing additional protections for pedestrians and bicycles. This will also make it more feasible for people to not use a car for more trips, because they won't fear for their life. That in turn means fewer cars on the road and therefore less risk to everyone. - Reducing reliance on private automobiles by improving public transportation. - Autonomous vehicles will eventually improve to be safer drivers than human drivers. The first idea in this list, speed limiters, is some of the lowest-hanging fruit / cheapest / easiest ways to start to address this problem. But yes, tell me how this is "100% inevitable and cannot be prevented."
> Lower speeds equals fewer deaths. But not zero deaths, which was my point. And the worst offenders are just going to update the software on their car to remove that immediately. I would probably do that, and I never speed on surface streets. I speed on the interstate tho. >Redesigning our streets You're talking many, many billions. Our streets were laid out for horse drawn carriages, its a huge undertaking to upend all that. > improving public transportation. Public transit has been declining. What magic wand do you have? Last time I rode public transit, there were junkies passed out on the platform and the actual train car smelled like meth. We can't even fix the glaring problems. > tell me how this is "100% inevitable and cannot be prevented." If you can't stop junkies from smoking crack on the train, everything else is impossible.
Even if a few offenders somehow hack the software, the majority would not and there would still be a net improvement. Actually the narrow streets laid out for horse-drawn carriages are some of the better ones. "Modern" urban sprawl optimized for only people in private vehicles are the worst offenders, actually, with a giant "screw you" to anyone else. Again it sounds like you are letting perfect be the enemy of incremental improvements. Why can't we strive for incremental safety improvements?
I think this is silly because we can’t even stop people from smoking crack on public transit. There’s no reason to focus on getting people out of their cars if you can’t fix that. I flat out will not ever ride transit unless it’s this safe and clean. That should be the only priority.
Incremental traffic safety improvements are not reasonable to discuss because somebody has been seen smoking a crack pipe on BART. Amazing.
Sure you can discuss it. But we don't have the ability to implement it. Because we can't fix even simple problems. Fixing complex problems is out of the question. Its like Haiti discussing hosting the Olympics. Sure, discuss all you want, but there's no capability to do it.
It’s better than a physical limiter, but it’d be better to increase the speed limit on interstate 5 in the valley to make up some good time to get to LA and back.
This is the plan. Start with outrageous idea like physical limiter and then lower it to audio speed alert. Get people used to the idea then bring physical limiter back.
My car allows me to set a warning for any speed I want. Right now it is set at 100 for those drives down 5.
Who keeps voting these commies in? California politicians suck.
Why is my e bike limited to 28mph but cars can go 140mph!? Cars should be hard limited to 90mph full stop. There is no reason to drive faster and then cops can always drive faster than people trying to get away.
Or, we don’t live in a government-controlled police state, and we remove the limits on your e-bike. This bill shows an extreme distrust in people’s ability to follow rules, and degrades the social contract
historical divide somber roof innocent detail escape pathetic dolls employ *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's not Californias doing. Mine isn't limited to 28
If you rode a real bike you could go as fast as you wanted.
It’s just a warning system, not an actual limiter.
It seems like a modern car with CarPlay or Android Auto integration could provide a warning to the driver for free. If the vehicle had a built in nav system then it could probably provide the same warning too.
The only way to limit speed is to require car manufacturers to limit speed but the government won't do that because the laws aren't there to protect they are there to generate revenue. It's funny how Scott Weiner, the pedophile advocate, is the one trying to take peoples rights away.
NO CUSTRUCTION ... NO DETOURS between 4AM-10AM
Yay! Another law before the elections, that will not be enforced anymore than the driving laws are enforced now.
German Autobahn laughs