California Senator Scott Wiener is introducing a new set of bills to make streets safer across the state, including one that would change how you drive.
My assumption would it be would work by limiting acceleration rather than enforced braking which could be dangerous. But we’ll have to see what system they come up with.
I think this has almost no chance of becoming law anyway.
Not limiting it is already a safety issue. It’s almost unthinkable that these situations would be more frequent or dangerous than speeding already is. But I’m curious what scenarios you are referring to. I can’t think of anything that is likely to happen with any regularity.
“But what if there’s a nuclear attack followed by a tsunami!?!” vs. “speeding drivers regularly kill people”. These aren’t legit worries people have, they’re excuses because they regularly speed and get upset that they might be compelled not to.
What exactly happens when you drive…
A - out of state? B - from one posted speed limit to another? C - If you disable or remove the device from the vehicle?
Technologically speaking, easy.
A - system turns off
B - new speed becomes the current limit
C - reported/ticket/vehicle is disabled.
I’m not talking about autopilot. It’s your job, as it is today, to reduce your speed BEFORE the limit change.
So in my town there’s a speed trap that goes from 45 to 30, downhill. I slow down gradually especially when there’s snow.
Will this system communicate such things to the car? Or will the car automatically stomp on the breaks and potentially cause a spin out or collision?
My assumption would it be would work by limiting acceleration rather than enforced braking which could be dangerous. But we’ll have to see what system they come up with.
I think this has almost no chance of becoming law anyway.
Limiting acceleration could also be a safety issue in certain scenarios
Not limiting it is already a safety issue. It’s almost unthinkable that these situations would be more frequent or dangerous than speeding already is. But I’m curious what scenarios you are referring to. I can’t think of anything that is likely to happen with any regularity.
“But what if there’s a nuclear attack followed by a tsunami!?!” vs. “speeding drivers regularly kill people”. These aren’t legit worries people have, they’re excuses because they regularly speed and get upset that they might be compelled not to.
I completely agree. The silent downvotes usually speak to a lack of any coherent rebuttal.