Bill that would mandate speed warning tech in new cars heads to Gov. Newsom's desk
- Thread starter bnew
- Start date
They already have cameras in all of our houses (our phones, TVs, doorbells, Echo shows, etc). I literally can care less because we have literally been under surveillance for decades now in everything we do.
you doing too much. speeding is not a right
i wouldn't mind this, to literally prevent me from getting a ticket 
far too many people die on the roads, and at the end of the day, driving should be a mundane activity that just gets you from A to B. if you wanna drive like an a$$hole, go to a racetrack. driving getting "safer and more boring" is not the end of the world
far too many people die on the roads, and at the end of the day, driving should be a mundane activity that just gets you from A to B. if you wanna drive like an a$$hole, go to a racetrack. driving getting "safer and more boring" is not the end of the world
Big ass lanes to accommodate big ass pickups in metro areas (mf you’re not hauling shyt. Get a damn sedan or SUV), multiple lanes, and straightaways encourage speeding naturally. Drivers will drive as fast as they comfortably can at all times. Mfs want the speeding ticket revenue more than they want fewer traffic deaths
It's not about me wanting to drive like a jackass. It's about having a vehicle that can do it when I NEED to. Emergencies, escaping danger (road ragers), avoiding obstacles and wrecks, etc. Plus, PRIVACY. You know how many times I've gone 5-10 mph over the speed limit because I didn't see the sign in time? Almost every speeding ticket I've gotten in my life (5 or so ) was from bullshyt like a sign covered with trees or snowed over, a cop pulling me over because I sped up 100 yards BEFORE gettign to the speed limit sign, etc.you doing too much. speeding is not a right
You know how many tickets people will get if there's a computer reporting violations to the city?
On top of that, the ugly little truth about US roads is they have speeding baked in. There was a story about 15 years back where 3 students tested this by driving EXACTLy the speed limit on I-95 in the DMZ. They created a huge traffic jam because our highways need people moving at that 5-10 mph over to clear out the metro during rush hour.
you said all that failing to realize that it can do that because your government has allowed it and they can also limit it. a lot of people use the idea that they might need to legitimately speed one day as a reason to keep that option available but in reality a lot more people die from unnecessary speeding so when you are charged with taking care of a society you have to consider greater good. that 1% chance in life that you speed for all the good reasons doesn't beat the 99% chance that it's for all the wrong reasons as often is and can be demonstrated by stats and accident reports. now as far as reporting violations it said warning. in the article it says speed governors (limitors) were scrapped from the bill. so if your car doesn't have a built in gps it gives you a speed warning no reports
east
Screwed up... till tha casket drops!!
seatbelt laws are unconstitutional in my state
jokes aside, they use diktats like that as a pretext to kill hundreds of us every year: "Many stops began with common traffic violations like broken taillights or running a red light; relative to the population, Black drivers were overrepresented among those killed." "The officers heard Cedric Mifflin, a 27-year-old Black man, blasting music from a silver Mercury Grand Marquis. Then they tried to pull him over: He wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. An officer leapt out of the patrol car, drew his gun and fired 16 times at the moving car."
Why Many Police Traffic Stops Turn Deadly (Published 2021)
Officers, trained to presume danger, have reacted with outsize aggression. For hundreds of unarmed drivers, the consequences have been fatal.
How Police Justify Killing Drivers: The Vehicle Was a Weapon (Published 2021)
A Times investigation into a common defense for shooting motorists found that some officers had put themselves in danger. Others appeared to face no peril at all.
that reminded me of that kentuckyballistics youtuber, he had a fugazi .50 slap round blow up his rifle and sever his jugular. he was out in the woods with his drunk dad/cameraman and no reception, but they managed to race to civilization before he bled out. if that happened in 2026, his truck would've pulled over to the side of the road, stopped, and he would've died.
Infrastructure law has a mandate for tech to stop drunken drivers - Roll Call
A provision in the bipartisan law requires automakers to install anti-drunken driving technology into new automobiles as soon as 2026.
Last edited:
Again, if everybody's cars had the features of these newer cars nothing you said would be an issue. Yes, still allow the cars to speed up past the limit if needed, but only for a given time period to merge with traffic or whatever.
If it's me in my whip that has all those features with another car with those features in front or behind me, there is almost no chance of us hitting each other...so if every car has the same features.
I drive quite a bit and you can tell when somebody is using autopilot or adaptive cruise control/steering assist because there is always safe distances between the cars at all times and nobody ever goes out of their lane without a turn signal. The only ones slamming on brakes and shyt are the ones that don't have those features
Gives an alert, but doesn't actually slow you down (I don't think. Does it?)
Edit: If I get redirected to another fukking "unsafe" website while typing one sentence ima have to leave The Coli alone for real
Richard Glidewell
Superstar
People can never see the forest for the trees......that or they are purposely being obtuse........lower the fukking speed limit if they feel that way.........all they doing is increasing costs for no fukking reason........I would have a while cottage industry built around spoofing and disabling that fukk shyt
A bunch of dangerous drivers in here waxing poetic 
That was their original idea, but it probably ran into interstate commerce laws.
IIVI
Superstar
This state got the worst fukking drivers so I wouldn't be opposed.
That said as someone who travels back and forth between LA and SD probably once or twice a month, the urge to keep it under 75 mph between San Onofre and Oceanside when the road is clear is tough.
Edit: That drive is 1.5 hours to go 20 miles at 4:00PM. shyt is golden to get through there ASAP if the opportunity presents itself. Most people know you jump into the fastlane and punch it during that stretch.
That said as someone who travels back and forth between LA and SD probably once or twice a month, the urge to keep it under 75 mph between San Onofre and Oceanside when the road is clear is tough.
Edit: That drive is 1.5 hours to go 20 miles at 4:00PM. shyt is golden to get through there ASAP if the opportunity presents itself. Most people know you jump into the fastlane and punch it during that stretch.
Last edited:
