Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Proposed State Law Would Require All New Cars to Have Speed Limiters" video.

  1. It depends what they set it to. My motorcycle has a rev limiter to protect the engine, but it's set high enough as to not be an issue. I would want to see more actual details before being opposed to it. A limit that's over 100mph is unlikely to impact anybody that's not engaged in criminal activity.
    8
  2. You're not allowed to speed in that situation, so it's kind of a moot point. If somebody is that messed up in the back of the car, you shouldn't be driving them to the hospital, you should be calling 911 for an ambulance. Even if you do get them to the hospital, the ambulances typically have an expedited check in process as they're usually in touch with the ICU doctors at the hospital as they're driving so that there's a team that has as much of the relevant information as possible upon arrival. The extra few minutes that it takes to drive the speed limit isn't likely to make much of a difference as that stuff then has to be done when you arrive.
    4
  3. No, the issue here isn't that there would be a limiter, it's that limiting it to the speed limit has a bunch of issues, including passing and the implicit sense that if the car is allowing me to drive 50mph, then that must be safe, even if the road conditions don't permit safe driving over 30 due to visibility or snow.
    4
  4. The over the speed limit bit is a serious problem for a lot of reasons. Restricting it to 20mph over the speed limit would probably be workable though. It's just a shame that a small number of idiots driving dangerously lead to things like this. That being said, the time for this sort of thing was probably a couple decades ago, at this point we're nearing the point where the automatic emergency braking combined with modern traction control will likely make the advantages of speed limiting moot.
    2
  5.  @macroman91  The reality is that if they set the limit to something reasonable like 20mph over the speed limit, that it will ultimately save more lives than n this sort of rare scenario would cost. It's more of a rationalization that there's a potential legitimate reason to speed here rather than one that's likely to come up. Even in a rural area, you're probably not going to want to be going much over the speed limit anyways as those roads are typically not designed to be driven faster anyways.
    1
  6. Honestly, it probably won't be that expensive to deal with, it likely would just plug into the fuel injection system with a sensor connected to the wheel. This isn't that much different from the rate limiters that are already installed on some vehicles to help prevent them from redlining. The bigger issues are that this could cause issues for passing, potentially suddenly getting out of the way of a hazard and that it would require a map and GPS to know what the speed limit should be, otherwise it's largely useless other than from keeping people from going 120+ on the freeway at night.
    1
  7. Most cars can't hit 160mph and you do need an engine that can go significantly over the top speed limit in order to make passing less dangerous. A limiter would allow you to still accelerate relatively well near that top operating speed, but still not go above it. Personally, I'm not a particular fan of this, but given the jackwagons that drive recklessly, I'm also not a particular fan of the status quo where people are driving far faster than conditions allow and kill bystanders.
    1