California Passes Bill Requiring New Cars To Beep At You When You're Speeding
California Passes Bill Requiring New Cars To Beep At You When You're Speeding
If you want to do more than 10 mph over the speed limit, prepare to be annoyed.
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't really care about the honking so much as I do the fact that this mandates that the car track its position.
“[an] integrated vehicle system that uses, at minimum, the GPS location of the vehicle compared with a database of posted speed limits, to determine the speed limit, and utilizes a brief, one-time visual and audio signal to alert the driver each time they exceed the speed limit by more than 10 miles per hour.”
Honestly the only part of this that is unreasonable is that it isn't immediately followed with "the database updates will be maintained and provided in an open, unencrypted format for free for the life of the vehicle, and the tracking data cannot be used for any other purpose". GPS is a one-way, triangulation-based signal. It doesn't inherently track or leak anything. I think we would be a lot safer if we all could agree what speed to go.
I think we would all be safer if we recognized individual competence and attention as the key ingredient in safety, and stopped trying to replace human attention with an ever-expanding set of sensors and woefully inadequate algorithms for determining whether the driver is being safe.
Like, if they have to model the driver as someone who’s not paying attention, then the whole design philosophy of the car is fucked, and we’re designing for failure.
I agree. And the whole design philosophy of the car was fucked when manufacturers were allowed to build SUVs and oversized trucks that weigh 2+ tons and don’t require any additional certification or licensure.
The statistics around accidents with large vehicles like that are less about their operation and more that they exist at all. Accidents will always happen, certification or no. The issue is someone struck by one will be more likely to sustain heavier or critical injuries, and smaller cars offer less protection for their passengers when hit by heavier vehicles.
So rather than "you can use one of these completely unnecessary vehicles if you pass a test once", they should just be outlawing them all together as basic consumer vehicles. If they aren't being designed for specific utilities or business purposes, you can't make them and sell them to just anyone.
The whole design philosophy of the car is fucked and we have designed for failure.
"Individual competence" leads to over a million annual road traffic fatalities globally. Every. Year.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s bad when people die on the road. I just don’t think the path to reducing those numbers is trying to make the cars foolproof. Cars are dangerous. Perhaps we should require regular skills testing for drivers to make sure they know what they’re doing. There are definitely people who have licenses who should not have those licenses.
Skills testing would be a better investment of our resources than adding more attention replacement systems to account for a steadily-stupefying population of drivers.
The problem is that in many places there are no alternatives to driving. Taking away licenses from "those who shouldn't have licenses" restricts their access to regular life so massively that you don't do it unless there's no more room to doubt the decision. The question moves from "do you meet the maximum safety standards" to "do you meet the minimum safety standards".
The solution is to either make driving foolproof or to provide viable alternatives to those unfit (or unwilling) to drive.
Well we've been trying that for 100 years and it turns out it doesn't work because people are easily distracted and are generally terrible at driving.
Na, relying on individuals to be competent and not distracted is not the logical way to make the system safer. There's a well established hierarchy of how to design safe systems, and relying on individual expertise is at the bottom right above asking pedestrians to wear helmets to cross the street. We need safer streets, fewer, smaller, slower cars that have automated braking features. We need enforcement of speeding and distracted driving. It's fucking absurd how many drivers are on their phones. Making folks take a competency test does nothing for this (although I'm also for stricter licensing, but we also need alternatives to driving so people can live normal loves when we take their driving privileges away).
https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Controls_02.01.23_form_508_2.pdf
People don't speed because they are distracted. People speed because they think they are better than average drivers; every damn one of them.
Polls show nearly everyone, speeding or not believes they are berger than average drivers.
The GPS isn't the issue, the speed limit database is. How does the car know what the limit is, and how does that database get updated when limits are changed or new roads are built? What is the mandate on the updating of that database?
hence the omission I suggested unreasonable. That database needs to be updatable by the end user, trivially. IMHO could/should be done ad-hoc by a hobbyist or as part of a standard oil change every ~6mo.
I can also see bad actors "updating" the database to 100mph everywhere. I'm sure write restrictions could be put in place, but allowing the public access to a system like this would make it ripe for abuse.
the database updates will be maintained and provided in an open, unencrypted format for free
the tracking data cannot be used for any other purpose
These are mutually exclusive. If the data is open, unencrypted and freely accessible, it will be used for other purposes, by anyone who wants to.
Also, tracking every vehicle location and storing that in a centralized database is a privacy nightmare, no matter how well it's secured.
I think that they're talking about two different things there in those two different sentences.
The first is the map updates, the second the log of position data on the car.
OSM doesn't track you. The driving data could remain offline and the car can store the database locally to compare speed with what it should be at location x travelling direction y.
GPS itself doesn't transfer data about the location to the outside world, but it means that the car has to constantly determine its location, and that this is now a legal mandate.
Someone in the statehouse has never experienced for each loops.
It already does, and auto manufacturers already share or sell this data.
Heck, because there’s a massive loophole in consumer privacy around the government buying data, any government agency can just go directly to a vehicle manufacturer and ask to buy the data.
There was a big flap about this regarding car insurance recently, but as pointed out by the EFF (How to Figure Out What Your Car Knows About You), industry folks have been looking at monetizing this data for a while for all sorts of purposes, including advertising, consumer data sales, and even behavior analysis to understand how to better force consumers to pay for vehicle-based subscriptions.
We own nothing, not even our privacy.
It already does,
Yes, but they weren't legally required to do this prior to this point.
no honking at any point is involved.
Wouldn't that mean you would also have to pay someone to be tracked on a subscription based system?