Most comments in this thread comments on the fact that Europeans are loosing their freedom do speed, and that they will not be able to drive fast.
But that's just the title of an Australian website.
In the article, and in the actual law, this is just about a *warning* to the driver, that can optionally be coupled with the cruise control, and that *can be overridden* by the driver.
Basically all cars manufacturers today already have that technology. What this law means is that the car maker can no longer make this system an overpriced option when selling the car.
Ok I'll bite. The single most thing I hate about driving car in Germany is the lack of an upper speed limit on big stretches of the Autobahn. If you cross over from any neighbouring country any driver will notice that what before was a friendly chugging along now has become a stressful battle between people who just want to go somewhere with a good compromise of speed and fuel use and speedsters who will breath up you neck even if you are going 160. No thanks.
If this law were to enforce the speed limit by enforcing it in the motor control system there would still allow for unlimited speed on those stretches.
Your freedom to go faster than the speed limit also interferes with other freedoms btw. for example the health of people who live close to roads, the bodily integrity of people who might fall victim to the accidents caused by it etc.
If we build the roads correctly (e.g. like in more modern european places, many places in the Netherlands) speed limits become less relevant, because the shape of the street itself will limit how fast any sane person would go (not to speak of speed bumps).
So if you find yourself constantly enforcing speed limits, maybe there is an impedance mismatch between the way your road feels and the limit you slapped onto the traffic sign?
The obvious solution is to change the road, which might also come with added benefits (better for pedestrians, people on bicycles, therefore better revenue for local shops, restaurants and cafes etc).
Quite frankly I'd have no problem if my car enforced a speed limit, if the speed limit matches the street. Going 30 in a narrow (and I mean european narrow) street feels totally appropriate. Going 30 in what could be a highway not so much.
Well, this is like with all slippery slope argument. First they set the speed limit to 70, then to 50, then to 20, then you can't drive at all. So better not let them set any limit?
What this is is just adapting an already extremely regulated field to the new technologies.
Road safety and regulations has massively improved the safety of cars in the last few decades, therefore saving many lives. And yet, car driving is still one of the most dangerous method of transport, causing countless of fatalities every year.
Well, cool. Speeding is the main source of accidents. Even escooters know where they are and reduce the maximum speed in some zones. Nobody ever was killed with an escooter. Why can't we restrict cars to the speed they are supposed to drive? It would make driving so much easier!
Further, a website that most Australians would consider biased towards motoring enthusiasts and not afraid of dabbling in clickbait-y crap to drive (hehe) traffic to their website (examples below).
Now, I have cherry picked them in the sense that they stood out to me from their more typical motoring news or promotional material which makes up most of their content. So I don't think they are inherently worthless but they are certainly pretty low on the journalistic effort side of things.
Back in the day, all Singaporean taxis used to be fitted (by law) with warning systems that went "ding, ding, ding" continuously if the car ever exceeded Singapore's top speed limit of 90 km/h. But even nanny state Singapore gave up on this, because it was just too annoying and pointless.
The one thing speed limiters would be good for is preventing extreme speeding, like this drunk dickhead who drove at 148 km/h on a small street with a limit of 50 km/h and killed 5 people including himself:
Then again, the BMW in question had also been extensively and mostly illegally modded, so any sort of limiting system would almost certainly have been disabled in the process.
So all cars will be susceptible to "phantom braking" due to a bug or worse? I really dislike this, and living in the third world I can already imagine fake road signs being used to decelerate and rob cars.
I'm not sure why this is the consistent take. We have e-scooters and bikes with limiters on speed, why would this be materially different than cars?
It's not like it needs to slam on the brake, it just needs to disengage acceleration past a certain speed. This isn't new grounds for tech and it is _currently_ deployed on our streets.
I'm not sure what the panic over this is, if anything this is a good thing - why should passenger vehicles go 200+ km/h anyways? Why isn't a more reasonable limit imposed, for cars that spend 99% of their time in an urban centre? What actual road is engineered to even support that kind of speed?
Let's do a joke where we go on the highway, and some people in the back pull out a painted sign with (30). Camera of the car behind you detects it and breaks. I can see such shenanigans happening.
Sounds like having the theoretical ability to disobey those stops and drive super-fast through them will buy you very little. That's a kind of freedom you only get to exercise once in your life.
I imagine it would work by GPS (at least in Europe the speed limit of most roads can even be displayed in google maps).
Also: your motor/brakes are likely already controlled by software. Whether a speed limit is bolted onto that software or not doesn't make a lot of difference.
> When ISA detects the car is over the limit, it may induce visual and audible warnings, as well as haptic feedback through the steering wheel or throttle pedal, or it may begin accelerating the vehicle if no action is taken.
It's going to be like the auto start/stop button on new vehicles: you can turn it off, but it'll always be on whenever the car is turned on again.
> it shall be possible to switch off the system; information about the speed limit may still be provided, and intelligent speed assistance shall be in normal operation mode upon each activation of the vehicle master control switch;
To add, the same system will be required for AEB:
> 4. Advanced emergency braking systems and emergency lane-keeping systems shall meet the following requirements in particular:
> the systems shall be in normal operation mode upon each activation of the vehicle master control switch;
I object to driving any car with a built-in GPS or an internet connection, on basic privacy grounds. It amazes me how many advocacy groups and organizations [edit: and bicycle fans right here on HN!] are willing to completely demolish essential rights like privacy and freedom of movement, in the name of preventing speeding accidents.
I object to people operating dangerous vehicles in areas I walk without proper safety equipment. Feel free to drive whatever you want on your own private property.
If you want privacy and freedom, you are free to walk or ride a bicycle unidentified. Which is fine as there is essentially no risk of killing people.
First of all, I hope you don't walk or ride your bike on the interstate. Secondly, being prohibited from using any form of transport faster than a bike without providing GPS location and personal identifiers is, for all intents and purposes, a total ban on freedom of travel. It's not like I think my freedom to drive without a GPS gives me a right to run over bikers. But the fact that you're willing to sacrifice all privacy and put any controls imaginable on free navigation to prevent stupid people from being stupid is extremely myopic. How long do you think it will be before every bike has to have a GPS and a personal identifier too? Ultimately that may not matter to you, but then again you might be just as happy with a bigsceen TV and a hamster wheel as going out, if they told you it was better for ya.
The counter-argument to this is that driving a 2-ton machine capable of killing people is not a fundamental right either.
I'm not saying that this isn't a privacy overreach and I think there are other things we can do to limit speeds (road design, etc.), but I think there's a reasonable balance to be found here.
GPS is not a tracking technology. It's read-only. It allows you to determine your coordinates by listening to satellites. GPS receivers don't send your location.
I think they mean the advent of sending that GPS data over a cellular modem back to some home server. Due to the advent of GDPR+CLOUD Act[0], no US company can legally own a subsidiary in the EU and collect any PII-linked data from EU citizens; in other words, the GDPR's goal is to localize all citizen data within the country's borders. With this, it'll be super easy for a country to obtain that locally-stored information for the purpose of police 'investigations' (possibly via europol/similar for cross-country intel).
This should apply to GM, Ford, Stellantis, Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid, as all of them offer some sort of app functionality for seeing the location of your car.
It’s near impossible to buy a new car that doesn’t have some “smart” feature. Sadly electric is synonymous with “smart” features so it’s only going to get worse.
Things like ABS, radar controlled cruise control for distance, blind spot mirrors, auto levelling mirrors are all fine in my book, even heads up display for speed. Blind spot mirrors should be regulated as a requirement on all new vehicles.
The connected GPS’s, mobile connections, digital touch displays all seem a backwards step, especially the new thing manufacturers are doing by installing hardware but soft locking the feature until you pay extra.
It’s funny because most recent crime movies have become implausible when you know the level of monitoring and forensic (whether electronic, DNA, CCTVs, etc). It kinds of ruin the story to me.
Contrary to other "think of the children"-scenarios this one has an actual death number tacked to it.
And you might not be surprised, that children dying in traffic accidents does happen.extremely frequent. But forget the children, this also infringes on rights of regular people like me. Your right to drive around 2 tons of steel and plastics don't outweigh my right to not get killed by any stretch of the imagination.
A better idea would be to mandate black-boxes so if you do get pulled over there is no contest on whether or not you were speeding or made a full stop at the stop sign. You can use that as evidence and it can be used against you as well. This way, when I am driving on 85mph limited road under ideal conditions and little traffic I can pass other cars doing 100mph or more to get past the current pack and stay under 90 till the next pack. The right lane is for driving speed limit, left lanes are for driving past the limit while passing until you merge back on the right lane(s).
In Texas at least the speed limit is "whatever is safe" (you have to obey posted signs but you also have an obligation to drive faster or slower as safety demands it, as can be proven in court)
"If your car is a model from this century, there's a fair chance you do indeed, have a black box fitted somewhere within it. Black boxes have been in some of the major American car brands, like Buick, Chevy and Cadillac, since all the way back to 1994. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been using them to collect car accident data since early in the 2000s. If your car is from 2013 or later, you are almost guaranteed to have a black box. Less than 5 percent of new cars came without one in 2013, and they are mandated in all new vehicles since 2014."
> When ISA detects the car is over the limit, it may induce visual and audible warnings, as well as haptic feedback through the steering wheel or throttle pedal, or it may begin accelerating the vehicle if no action is taken.
“The ISA system is required to work with the driver and not to restrict his/her possibility to act in any moment during driving. The driver is always in control and can easily override the ISA system.”
Readit News
But that's just the title of an Australian website.
In the article, and in the actual law, this is just about a *warning* to the driver, that can optionally be coupled with the cruise control, and that *can be overridden* by the driver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_speed_assistance#I...
Basically all cars manufacturers today already have that technology. What this law means is that the car maker can no longer make this system an overpriced option when selling the car.
Then they make it increasingly harder to disable.
Then they make it mandatory.
Surely everyone who has experienced abusive changes in software can see that pattern from a mile away?
They aren't going to roast the frog, but instead boil it very slowly...
If this law were to enforce the speed limit by enforcing it in the motor control system there would still allow for unlimited speed on those stretches.
Your freedom to go faster than the speed limit also interferes with other freedoms btw. for example the health of people who live close to roads, the bodily integrity of people who might fall victim to the accidents caused by it etc.
If we build the roads correctly (e.g. like in more modern european places, many places in the Netherlands) speed limits become less relevant, because the shape of the street itself will limit how fast any sane person would go (not to speak of speed bumps).
So if you find yourself constantly enforcing speed limits, maybe there is an impedance mismatch between the way your road feels and the limit you slapped onto the traffic sign?
The obvious solution is to change the road, which might also come with added benefits (better for pedestrians, people on bicycles, therefore better revenue for local shops, restaurants and cafes etc).
Quite frankly I'd have no problem if my car enforced a speed limit, if the speed limit matches the street. Going 30 in a narrow (and I mean european narrow) street feels totally appropriate. Going 30 in what could be a highway not so much.
What this is is just adapting an already extremely regulated field to the new technologies.
Road safety and regulations has massively improved the safety of cars in the last few decades, therefore saving many lives. And yet, car driving is still one of the most dangerous method of transport, causing countless of fatalities every year.
Is there a right to break the law?
https://www.drive.com.au/news/bugatti-la-voiture-noire-for-7...
https://www.drive.com.au/news/chinese-flying-car-begins-test...
https://www.drive.com.au/news/suv-driver-charged-more-for-tr...
Now, I have cherry picked them in the sense that they stood out to me from their more typical motoring news or promotional material which makes up most of their content. So I don't think they are inherently worthless but they are certainly pretty low on the journalistic effort side of things.
The one thing speed limiters would be good for is preventing extreme speeding, like this drunk dickhead who drove at 148 km/h on a small street with a limit of 50 km/h and killed 5 people including himself:
https://mothership.sg/2022/06/tanjong-pagar-crash-coroners-i...
Then again, the BMW in question had also been extensively and mostly illegally modded, so any sort of limiting system would almost certainly have been disabled in the process.
It's not like it needs to slam on the brake, it just needs to disengage acceleration past a certain speed. This isn't new grounds for tech and it is _currently_ deployed on our streets.
I'm not sure what the panic over this is, if anything this is a good thing - why should passenger vehicles go 200+ km/h anyways? Why isn't a more reasonable limit imposed, for cars that spend 99% of their time in an urban centre? What actual road is engineered to even support that kind of speed?
Screw these features.
Also: your motor/brakes are likely already controlled by software. Whether a speed limit is bolted onto that software or not doesn't make a lot of difference.
No, there’s no requirement to connect the ISA system to the brakes or throttle
It's going to be like the auto start/stop button on new vehicles: you can turn it off, but it'll always be on whenever the car is turned on again.
> it shall be possible to switch off the system; information about the speed limit may still be provided, and intelligent speed assistance shall be in normal operation mode upon each activation of the vehicle master control switch;
To add, the same system will be required for AEB:
> 4. Advanced emergency braking systems and emergency lane-keeping systems shall meet the following requirements in particular:
> the systems shall be in normal operation mode upon each activation of the vehicle master control switch;
If you want privacy and freedom, you are free to walk or ride a bicycle unidentified. Which is fine as there is essentially no risk of killing people.
I'm not saying that this isn't a privacy overreach and I think there are other things we can do to limit speeds (road design, etc.), but I think there's a reasonable balance to be found here.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-61793149
This should apply to GM, Ford, Stellantis, Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid, as all of them offer some sort of app functionality for seeing the location of your car.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31853276
GPS & internet, on the other hand, is a great combo for tracking people.
Things like ABS, radar controlled cruise control for distance, blind spot mirrors, auto levelling mirrors are all fine in my book, even heads up display for speed. Blind spot mirrors should be regulated as a requirement on all new vehicles.
The connected GPS’s, mobile connections, digital touch displays all seem a backwards step, especially the new thing manufacturers are doing by installing hardware but soft locking the feature until you pay extra.
And you might not be surprised, that children dying in traffic accidents does happen.extremely frequent. But forget the children, this also infringes on rights of regular people like me. Your right to drive around 2 tons of steel and plastics don't outweigh my right to not get killed by any stretch of the imagination.
In Texas at least the speed limit is "whatever is safe" (you have to obey posted signs but you also have an obligation to drive faster or slower as safety demands it, as can be proven in court)
https://rislone.com/blog/general/does-my-car-have-a-black-bo...
"If your car is a model from this century, there's a fair chance you do indeed, have a black box fitted somewhere within it. Black boxes have been in some of the major American car brands, like Buick, Chevy and Cadillac, since all the way back to 1994. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been using them to collect car accident data since early in the 2000s. If your car is from 2013 or later, you are almost guaranteed to have a black box. Less than 5 percent of new cars came without one in 2013, and they are mandated in all new vehicles since 2014."
I sure hope they mean decelerate...
[1] https://www.clevelandmetroschools.org/cms/lib/OH01915844/Cen...
“The ISA system is required to work with the driver and not to restrict his/her possibility to act in any moment during driving. The driver is always in control and can easily override the ISA system.”
https://road-safety-charter.ec.europa.eu/resources-knowledge...
I was addressing the title of the post: "New cars will stop drivers from speeding...".
They won't stop them - they will inform them through various means that they are speeding.
Source?