Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders
Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders
www.fastcompany.com
fastcompany.com
39 comments
-
Republicans: Don't tread on my freedom! No seatbelts, no helmets! FREEDOM!
Also Republicans: Let's install a device in your car to track and enforce your activity
-
When you commit gun related crimes you lose your right to own guns. When you get caught speeding repeatedly you dont lose your license but just get a speed cap? I think this is too lenient actually. If you cant follow the rules and insist on endangering others then you shouldnt be allowed to drive. I really do not see any issue with this, its not remote tracking, its just a speed limiter installed in your car. Be grateful that you dont get your driving license revoked.
-
When you rape people, ostensibly even children on Epstein Island, you get elected president.
-
Per the article, it is in fact a remote tracker, which uses GPS to determine the speed limit of whatever road you’re on.
Be grateful that you dont get your driving license revoked.
Also per the article:
A federally funded study found that 75% of people with suspended licenses continued to drive.
-
The technology, which can be installed while a car is manufactured or afterward, uses GPS to identify the speed limit on a road segment and then deter drivers from going more than a programmed amount beyond it.
Nothing about remote controls here. They might still be doing it, but it wouldnt be necessary to implement this at all. All that is necessary is that the ISA module has up to date map data which it then uses in combination with GNSS to figure out the speed limit of the road that the car is currently on.
A federally funded study found that 75% of people with suspended licenses continued to drive.
If people drive despite not having a license then they should get their car taken away.
-
If people drive despite not having a license then they should get their car taken away.
Yeah I mean it’s simple and it’s complicated. Like in theory if you senselessly endanger people’s lives, we keep you off the roads. Easy peasy.
But in the US driving is simply not optional in many places. It may be the only way you can get to work or medical appointments, and most places don’t have public transit set up to handle that reliably.
In fact most (all?) US states have a system in place that allows unlicensed people to drive when they absolutely need to, in some cases even young teenagers below normal driving age. It’s often personally tailored: for example, a repeat OUI offender may get documents stating they are only allowed to drive at certain times of day, to certain predefined locations, and only in a specific car that requires a breathalyzer to start.
But even in that most extreme and egregious case, after everything and even after jail time and a permanent license suspension, they still end up on the roads regularly. So in the current legal framework there really isn’t a viable mechanism to take away their car
Re: remote tracking; Based on quickly looking up the actual devices being used they do appear to collect and report telemetry, but it’s a bit muddy as they appear to be more commonly used in commercial fleets. So sure, there may be room for some doubt on the matter. Modern cars in general are more likely than not actively equipped to report your information directly to the police, so who knows, maybe the personal ISA systems themselves are designed not to bother with it after all
-
If driving is essential for you, then you shouldn't drive like an asshole, go over the speed limit multiple times or drive recklessly, endangering others.
If you're putting people in danger because you can't understand the implications of driving a multi-ton metal box at insane speeds, you shouldn't be allowed to do it.
-
Well, they aren’t allowed to do it while they are in prison, right? Are you proposing people should be barred from car ownership forever after, even with a heavily limited provisional license? Are you equally motivated to extend that logic to any other type of crime?
Not to take the side of serial speeders and the like, not at all. But there’s a lot of legal and ethical context to unpack, not to mention the practicality of actually “taking away” driving from someone. We just don’t have a magic wand that solves the problem
-
I'm not saying you should be taken to prison. All I'm saying is if you don't know how to drive safely, you shouldn't drive. If people are unable to drive at safe speeds, they should not drive at all, and it's up to them to figure out an alternative (public transport, bike) or find a job that they can walk to.
I'm not leaving anyone without the option to go to work or drive anywhere, if they want that they can just drive responsibly.
-
I'm not saying you should be taken to prison
Just to clarify, people are taken to prison for these infractions. This is not you and I comparing hypotheticals
up to them to figure out an alternative
There are no alternatives. Our communities have been systematically ravaged by car companies. They literally paid to tear trollies out of cities and pave over the rails. Zoning laws have deliberately pushed people away from places they can work. Walking and biking is impossible. There isn’t a bus anywhere near you or your work.
We are once again not comparing hypotheticals. You’re just repeating your opinion (driving is a privilege which should be taken away from those who abuse it) without addressing the reality (driving is a necessity for most people in the US)
-
The reality is that if you want to have access to that privilege, you should not abuse it. The fact that communities were built in a car centric manner does not imply you can do whatever you want because nobody can take your car away. Either you drive responsibly, or you don't drive.
-
Either you drive responsibly, or you don't drive.
And yet, despite your repeated proclamations to this effect, they continue to be allowed to drive. You say one thing, yet reality is different. Curious. How would you explain this contradiction?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
To be honest, I don't understand why any car can go over 140 km/h. I get people want to enjoy their freedoms and all but it's not worth it really.
-
The highway near me has an 80mi/h speed limit, that’s why. If you need to pass you pass at 90mi/hr. And all that is if you’re driving a Semi. All of the cars usually go around 100mi/h which is 160km/h, that’s why. If you think it’s too fast, use a different fucking road.
-
Coincidentally, I just went on the autobahn yesterday, for the second time in my life. We were driving about 130 but there were plenty people probably going 30 or 40 km faster than us.
-
140km/h is what roller coasters are for :D
Or just get on a high speed train, then you can go 300km/h or more :P
-
Oh, we don't have those here bud. Best I can offer is a slow as molasses Amtrack last updated in 2000 something.
-
-
-
-
Republicans? The Virginia state legislature is controlled by Democrats.
Edit: I think the author is talking about this bill. It has Republican support but I didn't think presenting it as a solely Republican initiative is fair.
-
Virginia’s bill was signed into law by Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin
-
Sorry, I edited my post to add more specific information before I saw your reply.
The bill had enough support from both Democrats and Republicans in the legislature that the governor couldn't have vetoed it.
-
-
-
39 comments