[HN Gopher] New anti-speeding system coming to Australia is dang...
___________________________________________________________________
New anti-speeding system coming to Australia is dangerous
Author : teractiveodular
Score : 19 points
Date : 2024-08-21 21:39 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.carexpert.com.au)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.carexpert.com.au)
| dangus wrote:
| From the article: "To put it simply, the system is dangerous."
|
| And then it proceeds to spend zero time at all describing exactly
| what is dangerous about it. Seriously, the article doesn't even
| hypothesize about what makes this dangerous, it just says that
| it's bad.
|
| The car I drove about 10 years ago had trouble exceeding the
| speed limit at times because it was a diesel! It was never
| dangerous.
|
| Trucks including rental trucks are already governed to very low
| speeds and they don't cause a problem.
|
| Articles like this feel to me a little bit like the seat belt
| deniers of the past. They'll all have to sheepishly eat their
| words when passenger and pedestrian deaths go down after the
| program is implemented.
|
| Cars aren't toys. They are transportation devices. They kill
| people. They really aren't about freedom or whatever, not when
| I'm trying not to get killed by a maniac.
| toast0 wrote:
| I think there's a fundamental issue here that the posted speed
| limit is often not the same thing as a reasonable maximum speed
| that's appropriate for conditions. Speed limits are set for all
| sorts of reasons that don't often match up with safety, and
| even then, they're usually set for normal conditions; when you
| have great visibility, dry pavement, and low traffic, it's
| often not unsafe to exceed the posted limit; just the same as
| when there's poor visibility, wet or icy pavement, or heavy
| traffic, following the posted limit is unsafe.
|
| Having an alarm that distracts the driver when they're driving
| a safe and reasonable speed is an unnecessary distraction. And
| it won't help drivers maintain a safe and reasonable speed in
| unfavorable conditions, unless this also comes with real time
| updates for pavement conditions, visibility, construction, etc.
|
| For cars that have trouble exceeding the speed limit, it _can_
| be dangerous --- sometimes there are scenarios where exceeding
| the speed limit is the safest course of action; but experience
| with the vehicle would help you anticipate its capabilities,
| and it is what it is. Usually there 's pretty clear feedback
| that the vehicle isn't going to go much faster, so you will
| tend to avoid putting yourself in situations where you need
| lots of speed.
|
| Rental trucks governors aren't necessarily as obvious, but
| that's also more of a statement that trucks should have a lower
| maximum limit regardless of conditions and that the rental
| company doesn't trust renters to be aware of safe speeds for
| trucks.
| falcolas wrote:
| If you are accelerating, particularly in an EV, and your car
| starts screwing with your controls while pelting you with a
| high decibal alarm you used to only hear in an imminent
| collision, your chances of losing control are going to
| skyrocket.
|
| It happens all the time with inexperienced drivers and high
| performance vehicles, and consumer EVs are also high
| performance vehicles. Hyundai - one of the manufacturers
| mentioned in the article - makes an EV with a sub-3s 0-60 time.
| sparker72678 wrote:
| Once it goes beyond alerting, this is going to kill someone.
|
| A driver will be on a 2-lane road (1 lane each way), and attempt
| to pass the driver in front of them. A car will be coming the
| other way, and they won't be able to get in front in time.
|
| They'll try to slow and get back in, but the other cars will have
| filled the space. They'll have nowhere to go.
|
| Perhaps in this example the driver shouldn't have tried to pass
| in the first place, but removing an "out" from this situation, in
| which everyone gets to go home to their families, is a horrible
| idea.
| taeric wrote:
| This scenario is terribly specified. If you don't have clear
| time to pass a car in front of you without going an absurd
| amount over the posted speed limit, you almost certainly are
| putting yourself in danger already? I'll go further and say
| that people that take excess speeds in this scenario are
| already causing more accidents today, than a limiter would
| cause in the future.
|
| Edit: I should say I think it would be a bad idea to have the
| car force you to go slower than 1km over a limit. Having it
| visually alert that you are speeding, though, seems far more
| reasonable.
| frumper wrote:
| You're also going to be aware of this system when you attempt
| to pass another car. It isn't going to be installed in your
| car mid pass.
| imoverclocked wrote:
| It is poorly specified but also pretty common with the
| obvious variations. Eg: the person you are trying to pass,
| passive-aggressively speeds up.
| falcolas wrote:
| > Eg: the person you are trying to pass, passive-
| aggressively speeds up.
|
| Happens all the time to me. It's usually people in big
| trucks who get angy that a car dares to pass them. They'll
| go up over 80mph in a 45mph zone if you don't (or can't)
| finish the pass, or give up. And if you give up, they'll
| brake check you for your audacity.
|
| Having your controls start misbehaving while accelerating,
| or loud beeping (which is currently reserved for "you're
| about to hit something" while driving) is asking for a
| driver to lose control.
| kazinator wrote:
| [delayed]
| VeninVidiaVicii wrote:
| I wholeheartedly disagree. When you're passing someone on a
| two-lane highway you should always speed way up to get the
| hell out of the lane of oncoming traffic.
| compton93 wrote:
| Or when a car behind you tries to double dip on the overtake so
| you are forced to commit with them barreling up behind you.
| shermozle wrote:
| Drove a rented Kia in Central Australia recently that had this.
| It was fine: just stick below the speed limit. "Dangerous" to
| someone who continuously rides the speed limit perhaps.
| taneq wrote:
| The speed limit is the speed you should be driving in most
| circumstances, and is set far below the maximum safe speed for
| the road. Driving significantly below the pasted speed is as
| dangerous driving significantly above it.
| mrkpdl wrote:
| I own one, unfortunately it is often wrong about what the speed
| limit is. So it's not quite so straightforward.
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| An overly sensitive speed alert system that triggers warnings for
| even 1 km/h over the limit is a misguided approach to road
| safety. It fails to account for minor fluctuations in speed that
| naturally occur during normal driving, potentially causing more
| distraction and stress than it prevents. This system could lead
| to drivers constantly focusing on their speedometer rather than
| the road, ironically decreasing overall safety. Additionally, it
| ignores the context-dependent nature of safe driving speeds and
| the small margins of error in both vehicle speedometers and speed
| limit postings. Ultimately, such a system risks creating overly
| anxious drivers and diminishing respect for speed limits, rather
| than promoting genuinely safer driving practices.
|
| This will either be ignored after the first week, or more likely,
| removed via the aftermarket.
| Apreche wrote:
| We have many studies that show speeding is dangerous. Sounds like
| this system is very effective at discouraging speeding. Until I
| see studies showing more people are dying on road because of this
| system than because of speeding, sounds like it's working as
| intended.
| tazu wrote:
| I frequently pass cars that have signs of an impaired driver.
| Usually the driver is texting, but the signs are usually
| failure to maintain lane, frequent (unnecessary) brake tapping,
| and sporadic acceleration.
|
| Something that impedes my ability to pass unsafe drivers is
| unsafe.
| mrob wrote:
| If you're following close enough for them to be a danger to
| you then your driving is already unsafe.
| falcolas wrote:
| Close enough to be a danger in a car is "visible" (even if
| the view of them is blocked). More specific to the example
| is someone going 20 under the ambient traffic. They are
| someone you should get past safely, not stay behind.
| tazu wrote:
| One place this would definitely be dangerous is in my city in the
| US. There's an interstate highway with a posted limit of 55mph,
| but everyone does 70mph+ (there is no police enforcement, because
| it's too dangerous---pulling people over here causes more
| accidents due to rubbernecking and traffic). If you were to
| actually go the speed limit, you'd be constantly passed (on both
| sides) by aggressive drivers and cause unnecessary lane switching
| behind you.
| mrkpdl wrote:
| I have one of the cars with this system and I believe it is
| dangerous, as the car is beeping for your attention, it causes
| regular split second distractions from your situational
| awareness. The main issue is that these aren't the only beeps the
| car does, it has many other beeps, including one for when it
| notices the speed limit has changed. So you have to spend some
| mental power figuring out which beep you're getting. It's very
| distracting. Not to mention the fact that the system is wrong
| just as often as it is right. It often mistakes speed bump speeds
| for whole street speeds and beeps at you for not going 20 the
| full length of the street. It also has about 33% accuracy with
| school zones. Sometimes it knows it's a school zone but mostly it
| will beep if you go over 40 in a school zone even at times when
| the limit is not 40. I do think it is a dangerous system as it
| aggressively draws your attention away from the road. Also for
| what it's worth I'm actually on the slightly slow side of
| driving! I don't push the limit, and this system is still an
| issue.
| switch007 wrote:
| People defending the system: are you presupposing it is perfect?
|
| Because let me tell you:
|
| - Start-stop when it first came out was not perfect, still isn't
| *
|
| - Automatic headlights were and still are pretty abysmal
|
| - Crash detection systems are horrendously bad
|
| - My car thinks it knows the speed limits of the road I'm on but
| it's often wrong
|
| I'd love to know what new modern cars you drive with perfect
| 'safety' systems (I've driven a lot of modern cars)
|
| * I still find that start-stop incredibly annoying on automatic
| cars. At least on manuals you can keep the clutch pressed to
| pause it. Need to pull away quickly? Sorry, wait a second for the
| engine to turn back on...
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| I feel as if the fundamental issue with speed limits is that they
| often feel arbitrary and infantilizing. If the roads are designed
| properly then you don't really need them except perhaps as a
| warning (e.g. the German autobahn isn't unlimited on sections
| that have tight corners).
|
| My residential street in London is a 20mph limit. But it doesn't
| need a limit because it has speed bumps frequently enough that if
| you care about your suspension at all your max speed is average
| 15ish anyway.
|
| Then there's the main roads leading into town which are also
| 20mph limits, but are double lane roads with fairly wide lanes.
| Some of them even have metal dividers.
|
| It fundamentally makes no sense for the limit to be the same on
| both of those roads. One of them is a proper thoroughfare with a
| high design limit that was 30 until very recently (probably 40 or
| higher "back in the day"). The other is a neighbourhood that only
| really the residents and visitors have any business driving on.
| motohagiography wrote:
| hard caps and mandating enforcement like this makes me yearn for
| the meteor. speed limits make more sense as average speeds, but I
| suspect I may be of a different species than somone of such a
| literal mind who holds the opposite view where they would
| advocate for this sort of thing. I don't see how this is
| reconcilable.
| DominikPeters wrote:
| I'm generally strongly in favor of technical system for making
| speeding impossible -- for example I don't think it should be
| legal to sell cars that are able to go 100km/h on city streets.
| But this implementation seems designed to elicit backlash.
| Beeping is bad, and setting the tolerance at zero is not friendly
| given general driver behavior. I'd find it much more sensible to
| have "smooth" systems, such as a constant "buzzing" sound whose
| volume increases with the square of the speed excess, or
| translating pedal pressure into speed in such a way that convexly
| increasing amounts of pressure are required to go further above
| the limit.
| maxrumpf wrote:
| This comment section is scary. Hacker news advocating FOR nanny
| technology?!
| imoverclocked wrote:
| > Freedom of choice is a fundamental part of human nature. So
| much so it has net effect on our mental health. There are dozens
| and dozens of peer reviewed studies that correlate the capacity
| to choose with happiness.
|
| For many people, a car is a phenomenon of personal freedom. Like
| any freedom, some people abuse it. Taking freedoms away (even
| perceived ones) is dangerous.
|
| My big issue with attempts like this are that they fail to
| encompass the whole experience of driving. An obvious one: if
| it's speed that you want to control, then you need lower and
| upper limits. Lower limits means that some cars need to be
| stopped from entering certain roads at all. A tractor that can
| only go 15 mph should never be on an interstate... unless, of
| course, it's working on the interstate. Good luck with that!
|
| The system of driving was made with fairly simple rules for
| humans to abide by. It wasn't designed for and isn't made
| strictly safer by partially automating portions of driving. I
| have yet to see any implementation that lacks downsides.
| cromulen wrote:
| I for one support this system. I drive a VW with this feature and
| it's fine. It recognizes signs well enough. There's a built in
| grace of about 5km/h. The only thing the car does is that it
| produces a few gentle dinging sounds that are completely
| different from other warning sounds like parking sensors, when
| someone hasn't buckled in, door is open, etc.
|
| I have no intention of speeding and welcome the warning to
| consider I may have missed a sign. And if it is wrong, or I wish
| to ignore it, it's only like three subtle dings. It's fine.
| Perhaps the issue is not in the law, but the specific car
| manufacturer in the article.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-21 23:00 UTC)