Edmunds CarPool

I would echo 06scooby in that driver training is the culprit. The Ontario driver's licensing program is more strict then the one listed above, but it still produces far too many inept drivers. I'm also one for banning the use of cellphones/devices while driving. I know people have a mixed opinion on this one, but I think bluetooth/sync is just a safer option.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_re_us/driving_age

There is another "driver safety" link for you. Sorry, I don't know how to use HTML.

or, it'll HTML it for me automatically.

I'll disagree Karl,

While Speed does not cause the accident,
speed causes the death.

You cannot deny the physic's behind it. (I know people will try, but its not possible).

And with todays cars with crumple zones, the engineering is so tweaked to pass insurance and government safety tests, that once that threshold gets broken, the result is far more catastrophic

First of all, is the "vice-chairman of medicine at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center", really an expert on the subject?

I'm with you Karl. And scooby, right on, it's bad, untrained, distracted driving that kills, not simply speeding. We need better training.

Also, I suspect there are far more "speeding" deaths caused by going too fast on a city street (50 in a 30 zone, 65 in a 45, etc.) than on the highway. 80 in a 60 zone, or 100 in an 80 zone, is relatively safe, depending on traffic conditions. Also, I think I've heard or read somewhere that most of the very high speed deaths, 100 mph plus, are single vehicle accidents. One idiot on a lonely stretch of interstate in the middle of nowhere loses control and flips into a ditch. I suggest they get their grins on a track with some professional instruction. But in the end, I'm not too concerned when someone is only risking their own life.

1st) You're arguing sematics in this point. The limit on the automobile would be set at the maximum legal limit anywhere in the US. So if the most you could legally travel on an open road is 80mph, that's the limit you set.

This of course discounts places like private tracks and raceways, in which there isn't a legally mandated speed limit. But hey, you'll just have to buy last year's 'Vette rather than next years.

2nd) The only statistic I believe is that 95% of statistics are wrong. I actually have to give the author some respect, as he demonstrates in his article the fact that his statistics are biased.

3rd) If you could design a gun that could shoot deer but couldn't shoot people, wouldn't you do it? This country may have been founded on ideals of personal responsibility, but every drunk driver who kills someone is just demonstrating to me that personal responsibility isn't working.

4th) I agree that speeding isn't the only culprit in fatal accidents, and that many happen without it. So did the author, when he stated in his opening "Speeding is the cause of 30 percent of all traffic deaths..." The author is only attempting to address the deaths related to speeding. You're creating a strawman with your point here.

Personally, I agree that limiting speeding won't have a significant impact on loss of life due to accidents. In fact, look at history, the additional lives saved by reducing the speed limit to 55 were more than balanced out by the fact that many millions more man hours were being spent on the road each year.

It doesn't matter what the author thinks, however, as the government will never enact legislation to limit the speed of automobiles.

Why? Because they don't want to close down the revenue generated by giving speeding tickets.

Money, after all, makes the world go round.

I agree that licensing is a serious problem in the US. I know for a fact that it is much harder to obtain a driver's license in other countries such as Great Britain and the Bahamas. We need to make it more difficult to obtain a drivers license so that when people go through the driver training, they need to pay attention and learn proper driving habits. I think it is ridiculous that in the state of Illinois, you can be 'taught' drivers ed by a phys ed teacher and if he thinks you're a good enough driver, you don't have to take a driving test at the DMV. There needs to be a longer time between obtaining a permit and a drivers license, time enough for learners to experience all types of situations, weather and otherwise. As Karl pointed out, if a person is going 40 and not wearing their seatbelt, they can be ejected. This could happen in a 45 or 55 mph zone, so the person could be traveling at a rate of speed lower than the limit while still being in a collision. One other point I'd like to make, while speed may be a factor in a traffic incident, the physics that apply to the vehicle are more important. The size and shape of a vehicle needs to be taken into account, SUVs and trucks need a greater amount of space to slow down. They also have a higher center of gravity, therefore more prone to rollovers. Physics is a big part, but not always linked to excessive speed. A Lotus Exige could take a corner at 50 mph, but a Cadillac Escalade taking the same corner at 50 mph my rollover and cause the driver to die.

I really should have formatted that better...

Nice post.

What we need:
Better driver training.

Much more realistic speed limits (or none on freeways outside a city - like the Autobahn).

Ticketing of people driving too slowly - they are the problem quite often.

Heck, I may even get behind devices that won't allow a cars to start if you have a BAC over .02

How to do it is easy and I read about a product in an engineering magazine that will do it.

By combining a GPS navagation system ,a data base of all the roads with their speed limit and the cars built in speed limiter (lots of cars have them), you can easily build a car that can never exceed a speed limit. Doesn't matter if it's a 80 mpg limit on a hwy in Texas or 20 mpg in a city school zone, the car will know what speed to allow.

The technology is already there folks.... and it would save a lot of lives (and gas).

You can argue other causes all you want but the faster you go, the more likely you are to die in an accident. You are also more likely to be in an accident.

It's just physics.

Also remember there's no where in the constitution that says you have the right to speed.

It could happen.

One could argue that no one ever needs to exceed 80mph in real life, but the idea of governor-limited passenger cars will only exist in the confines of the NYT Op-Ed section, and not in real life!

As a physicist, I will disagree with the comment that while speed causes the accident, momentum (mass * velocity) and energy (0.5 * mass * velocity squared) have more of an effect on injury. That is why passenger coaches are governor-limited to something like 70mph. Plus, of course, arm51's SUV vs Lotus center-of-gravity argument.

+1 For better driver training. (This ought to be linked to Karl's post from a few weeks ago on driving behaviours in different parts of the country.)

Highways should have variable speed limits, and more importantly minimum speed limits (and dangerous driving tickets for those failing to obey). These work successfully in Europe for maximising traffic flow.
OK, there are sometimes valid reasons for going slowly IN THE RIGHT LANE, but never a valid reason for not keeping up with flow in the left half of the roadway.

"You're arguing semantics in this point. The limit on the automobile would be set at the maximum legal limit anywhere in the US. So if the most you could legally travel on an open road is 80mph, that's the limit you set."

Karl's point that this doesn't entirely solve the problem of speeding stands. The author is correct that there is no legal speed limit above 80 MPH on public roads, yet the speed limit does vary within those bounds.

As has been addressed multiple times in comments on this article thus far, it is going faster than is safe on a given road that is dangerous. Taking a 35 MPH turn at 80 would be foolish and likely deadly, even if 80 is not above the maximum possible legal limit in any US state. Thus, this would be a limited measure.

Of course, one could say that since the impact would be low, there's precious little reason not to implement such a restriction. "It won't hurt" is never a good reason to enact legislation.

"The technology is already there folks.... and it would save a lot of lives (and gas)."

You fail to estimate the cost of the technology to implement this, however. It would require a company to perform the mapping you state, both for existing roads and for any new construction. Either that or radio transmitters would need to be installed in thoroughfares to communicate with passing cars. The cars themselves would need the technology as well, of course. Additionally, requiring this technology to be installed would likely hurt new car sales, further depressing the flagging auto industry.

Also, while it's likely true that it would save gas given that wind resistance increases greatly as speed increases, it's not necessarily true that it would save many lives. It's simply assumed that regulating a malady out of existence will cure the ill. It's possible there could be unintended consequences, though I won't pretend to know what they are. (Then again, if we did and still passed the law, they wouldn't really be unintended consequences!) I'll leave this to individuals more knowledgeable than myself to fully contemplate.

"Also remember there's no where in the constitution that says you have the right to speed."

Absence of restriction on government power is not implicit permission or necessity for expansion. There's no clause in the Constitution guaranteeing anyone the right to breathe, yet Congress has thankfully avoided regulating breathing. Yes, I am aware this is a flawed analogy because breathing is a necessity while speeding is not. That's not the point I'm making. I'm making the point that lack of explicit protection is, again, not implicit permission for expansion of regulation.

Keep in mind that this is also a state issue, so the US Constitution actually has little bearing on this particular issue.

I look at it like this: it's not just excessive speed that kills; it's STUPIDITY that kills. Texting while driving; weaving in and out of traffic; jotting down notes; changing CDs; putting on makeup; DUI/DWI; reenacting scenes from the "Fast & the Furious" - all these scenarios can lead to an accident.

Adding more electro-nannies on today's vehicles to compensate for driver overconfidence/stupidity will make little difference in the real world. :-(

"You fail to estimate the cost of the technology to implement this, however"

It's already there. The government already knows what the speed limits are on all the roads (duh) and if you have a nav system (or OnStar)the car knows where it is.

"Absence of restriction on government power is not implicit permission or necessity for expansion"

It is already illegal to speed. What I was referring to is no one can come up with a lame arguement like the right to bear arms.

I do feel it is lack of skill and lack of common sense that causes accidents.

If anyone finds a way to install common sense on people, let me know.

I would prefer much tougher driving training and those who can't pass can take public transit....but that will never be accepted either.

Much easier and cheaper for the government to use existing technology to make everyone obey the laws that already exist.

Some NYC lib who has probably never seen an open highway in his life - likely doesn't even own a car - wants the government to force us plebes to have slower cars. Imagine that.

Tell you what, when the Boeing you do your traveling in is governed to 60 instead of 600 we can talk about my car.

while the premise of the article is a little silly I laugh every time people get into these rants about how any rule or regulation is equivalent to the government telling you how to think. Then again, we all know Karl is know stranger to hyperbole so expecting a reasoned, rational response for adult consumption would be too much. Why not rid ourselves of airbags, seatbelts, guardrails, lane markings, speed limits and all those other pesky forms of government interference that keep us from thinking and driving as free Americans? Since we are all smart enough to always do the right thing I wonder why any laws or rules even exist.

Why is it that every time 1487 opens his mouth, it smells like a Sumo wrestler took a dump on a burning tire?

In simple words we have rules and regulations. The author of the original article lives in New York and I bet he takes a cab or the metro to go to work.

You can talk all you want about safety, accident rates, fuel consumption, etc., etc., etc. The bottom line of that NY Times article is as follows:

The author is suggesting yet another way in which the state can govern our lives on a daily, nay, call that hourly (at least basis). Another step towards making us lockstep automatons doing the bidding of someone in authority, "for our own good" - of course.

I will fight it. If this suggestion ever becomes law, my last car purchase ever will be the model built just before the law takes effect. I will not allow the necessary technology to be installed in whatever I drive, and if it means I'll be driving illegally, so be it. Vintage motorcycles have their uses.

I'm an American, and have spent the last 58 years of my life living in a society where the moral decisions are mine to make, and mine to pay the consequences for should said decision be illegal and I'm caught at it.

I will not tolerate 'somebody else' making those decisions for me, just to advance his or her political agenda in some area. If I get the desire to live in a fascist or controlling socialist society, I can always move.

Maybe we should invite the author of the NYT article to partake in our dicussion....

What syke says....Give me liberty or give me death - preferably at 150mph!

Great stuff guys. A couple additional points:

Totally agree that the author's perspective is likely slanted due to his location. I actually, origingally, started into a several-paragraph rant on how people in New York GENERALLY (yes, I know there are exceptions) hate cars and have no idea what it's like to, say, drive across the country, or even across a state larger than New Jersey with wide-open spaces. But I decided to stick with the topic presented by the author versus attack his background...until now...

"If you could design a gun that could shoot deer but couldn't shoot people, wouldn't you do it?"

ABSOLUTELY NOT! I'm not worried about a deer breaking into my house and threatening my family (though I suppose some people in some parts of the country might have this concern...).

"The author is only attempting to address the deaths related to speeding. You're creating a strawman with your point here."

And my point is that speeding -- by itself -- doesn't cause any deaths. It's speeding while drunk or speeding in school zones or speeding in top-heavy SUVs or speeding through red lights or a hundred other APPLICATIONS OF SPEEDING that cause death. I'm sure there are people who speed all the time and they haven't caused a single fatality, or even injury or property damage.

"If anyone finds a way to install common sense on people, let me know."

GLAD YOU ASKED. Here's how you do it. When people make a mistake, let them suffer the consequences of their actions. Also, don't try to design a society where it's impossible to make a mistake (first, because it can't be done, and second because attempting to do so DECREASES people efforts to practice common sense -- they start getting this idiotic idea that the government will save them no matter how badly they *#@% up).

Speed doesn't kill...Impact does.

I think we should put restrictions on the New York Times.

To save lives we should mandate that everyone performs vigorous exercise 30 minutes a day, and mandatory restrictions on the amount amount of fats, sugars, and calories consumed. Personal choice should be banned because, some make bad choices.

First of all, speed doesn't kill - rapid deceleration does.

Second - I agree with heffling's earlier comment that this could never happen because the states and municipalities couldn't afford to forfeit the revenue generated from issuing speeding tickets.

Third - the idea of using GPS and speed limit databases to physically govern speed opens a whole can of worms regarding how speed limits are established. Has every foot of road in the U.S. been surveyed to determine it's safe speed? Why is the speed limit on the 405 freeway in Los Angeles 65 and not 70 or 60?

Fourth - Though government regulation is not necessarily analogous to the government telling us what to think, it does act as an incentive to NOT think about whatever is being regulated. If our cars are all physically limited to an established speed limit (via GPS or whatever), I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people will just drive with their foot to the floor without paying attention to their speed (no worries about getting a ticket, right?). To ensure safer roadways, we need people paying MORE attention to the task of driving, not less.

"...and mandatory restrictions on the amount amount of fats, sugars, and calories consumed."

mnorm, haven't your heard? They're doing that already in California (thank you Arnold).

I'm stunned by the suggestion that everybody be forced into getting GPS and a computer system that monitors speed. Why not just add in a networked interface so we can have real-time traffic monitoring at all times?

This isn't an issue related to personal freedoms so much as it's an issue related to the government overstepping its bounds - free movement of the people is kinda important. If you want to make a case for improving commerce and infrastructure through such a system, I'll listen.

Not to be paranoid but given our current administration...wouldn't such a system open the way for government to trigger a slowdown of all the nation's vehicles?

Would we require a retrofit on all cars to use this system on publc roads? Doesn't that create an unnecessary burden on all car owners?

Karl, I agree with you. That NY Times article is simplistic and stupid.....so much so that it's not even worth debating. For example, did that idiot consider the fact that it is in the interests of safety to be able to exceed the speed limit for short periods of time, maybe doing 90 ot 100 mph while passing a truck on a 2-lane road?

Not mentioned in any of the comments is that speeding is sometimes needed to get out of a potentially dangerous situation. When I'm surrouned by a clown with a stack of mattresses or a cluster of unattentive drivers, I think I'm practicing preventive safety by stepping on the gas. Let me decide the whether the risk of a ticket is worth getting out of what I percieve as a dangerouse situation.

Wolverine, I often worry about this explanation if a cop catches me doing this. I too have run into the same situation: a pickup filled with materials 25 feet high, you can easily envision all of it falling on you car, so you punch to get the heck outa there. I feel safer getting ahead of the slow driver with the teetering junk.

I drove a car this weekend that is pretty darn close to being unable to speed - on the Highway that is. It's the 2008 Hyundai Accent coupe with sport package. It packs a 1.6 litre engine with 110 hp and 106 ft-lbs. While I don't care for more laws, this car showed how much legal FUN can be had around town and on the freeway to about 65 mph. I would love to drive a low-weight car like this, but two things worry me: getting mowed down by speeding cars and trucks in the 4,000 lbs class!

First, I want to second the opinion on the Hyundai Accent. My wife had one when we were dating and I always enjoyed driving it. She thought I was crazy to like that economy tin can so I had to actually explain myself. It was really fun to drive it to its limits but still be within the legal speed limits.

Second, to the topic at hand: Even IF every car had GPS and IF all roads had the speed limits recorded in a database and IF the vehicles had a way to store and update the databases or IF a system to transmit the limits to the cars real-time and IF the govt (and by govt I mean us) would pay for this system, how will it know what the speed limit is if/when we go through an area with an interchange/overpass? How would it compensate for weather? Even 15 MPH is dangerous on ice. How would it handle a system crash or malfunction? Would everyone have to walk home?

Way too many IFs. Just train us better and hold us responsible for our decisions.

vq,

Most of that information is extremely easy to pass to a system with even basic data connections.

I agree completely with you but I think the actual implementation would be fairly easy to achieve.

1. Database updates do not need to occur that often. How often are new roads added? A once every 6 month update could conceivably do the job. This assumes no wireless/usb/cell network update is available. In reality this could be something on a cell network that's updated daily.

2. Car-based navi systems retain information far better than portable units. An accelerometer easily transfers information regarding your bearings. So enterting a tunnel, going through an overpass, etc isn't hard to track.

3. Max limits could be based on the default road settings. So yes, rainy days or snowy days could still allow idiots to speed wildly (without breaking the limit). If the system is on the cell network or in some kind of hive (vehicle to vehicle information), the updates would occur constantly within moments. A crash 15 miles down the road could conceivably be "known" to your navi before you get there - this tech already exists.

Okay, just to be clear, the reason for this blog post was not to get everyone together and come up with a system for actually limiting the speed of every car all the time. :)

Though the basic systems and technology you're discussing do indeed exist, and could potentially work at some point.

I need to go stab myself in the brain now.

Karl, dont all 2009+ gm cars already come with this technology? i thought the new on star allowed remote control over engine power...

I'll agree we should NOT limit the ability of people to speed.

I'll disagree that speed doesnt kill.

If we made cars incapable of exceeding the posted speed limit, we would also need to fix the many places where the posted speed limit is too low.

Arnold Kling wrote an article on TCS Daily about the concept of Legamorons, legal oxymorons, which he defined as "any law that could not stand up under widespread enforcement."
http://www.isegoria.net/2005/09/legamorons.htm

Related blog post.
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/08/poker_legamoron.html
"A legamoron is a "legal oxymoron"--a law providing that something is illegal even though the government has no intention of enforcing the law rigorously.

The classic example of a legamoron is the speed limit. Almost everybody, at least sometimes, violates the speed limit by at least a little bit. And almost everybody does it deliberately at some point.

The government knows that (its own members do it just as much as everyone else) and that is one reason why there is "tolerance" shown for minor violations of the law (e.g., going two miles over the limit). If you commit a flagrant violation, though, expect to get nailed and to have every mile you were going over the limit charged against you."

More Arnold Kling
http://arnoldkling.com/~arnoldsk/aimstindex.html

Karl, trust me I don't like the idea but it wouldn't be exceptionally hard to implement it.

Didn't an OnStar car you guys were testing have some incident involving OnStar interfering with the car because the system/handlers thought the car had been stolen?

"Why is it that every time 1487 opens his mouth, it smells like a Sumo wrestler took a dump on a burning tire?"

That was by far one of the lamest attempted insults I have seen on here. Just stop.

Why are people getting worked up over a nonexistent law? This guy is one man with an opinion. He isn't a mayor, congressman or anyone else with any power. This isn't even a law that is being proposed so it's pointless to complain about it right now.

"Karl, dont all 2009+ gm cars already come with this technology?"

If the owner reports the car to be stolen the engine power can be cut if you have that feature enabled. You can also have the vehicle tracked obviously. This isn't the same as controlling your speed limit. Most cars today are electronically limited and yet I dont hear anyone complaining. My car is limited by "big brother" from the factory to a mere 118mph which severly impacts my personal freedom. I might want to drive 130mph on any given day and have been denied by option. Most SUVs and pickups are limited to around 100-110mph regardless of power. Do you people find that to be objectionable?

"ABSOLUTELY NOT! I'm not worried about a deer breaking into my house and threatening my family (though I suppose some people in some parts of the country might have this concern...)."

CAn you explain to me why well off republicans are always the first ones to claim they need 10 guns to "protect their families" when they live in safe areas? Never got that. How many folks in your area have experienced violent home invasions in the last decade?

I'm a Republican. And I know I was glad I had my shotgun when a crackhead was pounding on my door a few years ago demanding entry, and I'd had my girlfriend lock herself in my bedroom while I stood in front with the shotgun waiting for the cops to come. They got there before he realized there was a large window next to the door, with a couple big rocks under it. May only have been loaded with the birshot I used for shooting clay pigeons, but it beat the hell out of the harsh language I suppose you'd rather I was limited to.

Andrew,

Calling the police helps in such situations. ;) Why not just send you girlfriend to the garage, keys in hand or the back/side of the house, ready to unlock the door and flee? Putting her in a locked room doesn't seem like a very good escape plan should everything go wrong.

1487 - almost never happens anywhere. The media all over the country likes to scare suburbanites with tales of evildoers. Ever notice how their commercial teasers always imply outrageous things: "find out how your microwave may be killing you!" "The threat that may be living next door, find out more at 11!"

I did call the cops. But it took 15-20 minutes for them to arrive. If he'd realized the rock was there, he'd have been inside the house far quicker. And there was no attached garage but merely street parking, and only one door into my duplex, so she'd have had to run past the crackhead to get to a car. As it was the bedroom had a window, so she was to climb out it in the worst case.

All I'm saying is, like the point of this article, the fact the person X is an idiot is no just reason to strip away MY freedoms, which I use responsibly.

"How many folks in your area have experienced violent home invasions in the last decade?"

Just because something rarely happens doesn't mean it's not worth protecting against. I've never once caused an accident, but I pay my liability insurance premium faithfully every month. By your logic, I may as well stop.

But that's a bit off topic. The federal government would have trouble finding constitutional authority to institute a total ban on speeding. Remember that the general police power (protecting general health, safety, and welfare of citizens) is reserved for the states, not the feds. I suppose they'd try to use the Commerce Clause for justification, but there are holes aplenty in that argument. So what would the feds do? Withhold highway funds from non-compliant states? And as trying to implement such control at the state level would be a logistical nightmare, I can't imagine this stupid idea would ever see the light of day.

"1487 - almost never happens anywhere. The media all over the country likes to scare suburbanites with tales of evildoers. Ever notice how their commercial teasers always imply outrageous things: "find out how your microwave may be killing you!" "The threat that may be living next door, find out more at 11!""

you are so correct. And there are people who really get their "facts" and perceptions from the dumbed down local news. If the news shows stories on 3 violent crimes in one night and there are 5 million people in your city people will come away with the conclusion that crime is out of control in the city and decide they better be strapped at all times.

"May only have been loaded with the birshot I used for shooting clay pigeons, but it beat the hell out of the harsh language I suppose you'd rather I was limited to."

I live in a city and have never experienced anything like that nor known anyone that has. I can almost see why people need one gun. But not 10. You can only shoot one at a time.