You can drive but you can't speed
You can drive but you can't speed
Speeding is killing 12,000+ Americans every year. Is it time for vehicles to come equipped with speed governors?
Speeding is a factor in more than 12,000 crash deaths per year in the US. The European Union reports almost a third of traffic fatalities are speed-related. Starting next year, all new vehicles sold in the EU must have Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA).
The primary means to detect the posted speed limit of any roadway is to use the vehicle's outward-facing cameras. However, the regulations also call for ISA to utilize map data and "deep learning" in case the speed limit cannot be determined from a sign.
ISA regulations say that if a vehicle speeds on any road, the system—when activated—must warn the driver or even automatically slow down the vehicle until it reaches the posted speed limit.
I haven’t followed the EU debates, but speed governors are a touchy subject in the US. I’d guess the most common dinner party response would be “I don’t like the idea of someone tracking me or being able to take control of my car.” That is real.
Mobility-as-a-Service skeptics were concerned about that a few years ago when integrated mobility ideas were gaining traction. There was a chorus of concern that bad actors could take over fleets of autonomous vehicles (buses, trash trucks, robo-taxis, etc.). There was also the concern about police overreach, especially during the 2020 protests.
One digital platform to plan/book/pay for all sorts of trips
But I don’t think nefarious government control or app tracking is what really bothers the average American deep down. The continued growth in TikTok usage should be plenty of evidence that something else is giving Americans pause. I think most people want to speed and they’re afraid to admit it.
I realize it's a hard sell to say "trust us, we'll decide if you should be able to drive a certain speed." But the fact remains drivers aren’t driving safely.
It’s been almost 10 years since this study was published:
This paper presents the overall results of the research focusing on the pros and cons of the use of ISA as a restrictive measure for serious speed offenders, and on the preconditions for deployment. The results showed that the ISA systems tested have a huge effect on driver behavior and have the potential to improve road safety by reducing the level of speeding, mean speed, as well as the standard deviation of speed. However, there are also cons: the behavioral change in driving behavior was only temporary. In addition the tested technology proved too easy to override, raised issues of equity, and a substantial back office is required when implementing the system for serious speed offenders.
This stuff is complicated, but what's not complicated is observing human beings are killing each other in traffic, and speed is a major reason for it. It could well be that now's the time for a parental intervention: "you had 100 years to use this tool wisely, but you aren't changing your behavior. We're geofencing streets and limiting your speed for you."
The tracking of pedestrians proposed by automakers and the constant tracking by most apps on our phones is far more invasive than speed governors. Without placing a right/wrong judgment on the mandatory ISA idea, I’ll leave you with one of my favorite quotes:
"There are no solutions, only trade-offs." —Thomas Sowell
How about making it mandatory only for repeat speeding offenders (a legitimate use of government force to protect the innocent and a condition for the speeder to keep driving)--but otherwise provide incentives for voluntary participation?
I’d happily sign up to lower my insurance rate and keep my term drivers safer!
Speed is really a multiplier. A mistake as speed is more difficult to correct and the consequences are greater. The risk is increased because the two components of risk (probability and severity) are larger. Yet other things affect the likelihood of accidents and one of those factors is skill. I am British but living in the US. In our town there is a traffic circle which is a big talking point in local politics and on neighbourhood forums. In the UK these are called roundabouts and they are everywhere and the traffic flows through them quickly and mostly without incident. but not here. First there is a lack of awareness. People race up to the traffic circle and then stop rather than slowing down, observing the traffic and speed-matching. Road positioning in atrocious, which means that at a stop light there could be a line of traffic waiting to go right on red, stuck behind someone blocking it off. All that creates frustration, lane switching (without indication) and speeding between junctions beyond levels of competence. I could go on but it comes down to driving tuition and the test. For my practical test in this state, I had to drive around the block, do an emergency stop and reverse a few feet. No three-point turn, reversing around corners, parallel parking etc... which you have to get right to get a UK licence. Also (but this may change) most people in the UK drive manuals which gives the driver a better appreciation of what the car is doing and makes engine-braking available. Leaving aside other (let's call them privacy) concerns this measure would save lives but then so would learning to drive. Now, this is all very subjective, so you may ask if there is any evidence for European roads being safer despite being much faster in terms of flow. The numbers are easy to find but you might find this article quite interesting.
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/road-deaths-us-eu/#:~:text=Most%20EU%20member%20states%20have,half%20of%20all%20U.S.%20states.