
EU says new cars must include built-in speed limiters - aginovski
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/26/every-new-car-built-may-2022-must-capable-housing-in-built-breathalysers/
======
CalRobert
If we had a culture where killing people with your car, even accidentally, was
viewed as similar to killing people with [other implement, gun, etc.] even
accidentally, this wouldn't be necessary.

Imagine it - person wants to go bird hunting, and the local school is great
hunting grounds. A kid gets killed by some stray buckshot, and they get a fine
and increased insurance costs.

But we let people operate deadly devices right by streets (you know, the
things made for walking until ~100 years ago), schools, parks, etc. and _even
when their irresponsibility kills people_ the punishments are tiny. The only
exception seems to be alcohol - but just being an idiot driver is fine.

I strongly dislike the privacy implications and nanny state here. But not as
much as I dislike ~60,000 dead people a year. Besides, if you carry a phone
(or licence place for that matter) you've sacrificed all your privacy anyway.

And really, it's more deaths than that, due to excess pollution (both air
pollution and sound pollution).

~~~
close04
> A kid gets killed by some stray buckshot, and they get a fine and increased
> insurance costs

Killing someone in a car accident where you're to blame will result in a
suspended prison sentence at the very least. It's called vehicular
manslaughter unless you were obeying the laws and what happened was not
intentional or reasonably preventable. Like if someone falls out of a tree
under your wheels. So the comparison doesn't stand.

~~~
CalRobert
Drivers are rarely held to blame, though.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-
ok-t...](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-
cyclists.html)

~~~
close04
This doesn't seem to be my experience in most of Europe. Actually in some
countries the driver might even be held responsible for cases when someone
jumps in traffic from between cars parked on the side of a road.

Edit, from the article:

> there is something undeniably screwy about a justice system that makes it de
> facto legal to kill people, even when it is clearly your fault, as long
> you’re driving a car and the victim is on a bike and you’re not obviously
> drunk and don’t flee the scene

If true it's actually shocking that any civilized country would have this
system.

~~~
stevenwoo
A study in Australia found a sizeable percentage of car drivers do not believe
cyclists to be full human beings.

[https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2019/03/27/australi...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2019/03/27/australian-
study-some-car-drivers-say-bikers-aren-completely-
human/pnZ779ml6nY53bduYwx8rI/story.html)

~~~
waste_monk
As an Australian, I can confirm this. It's not necessarily their fault, but
cyclists are extremely irritating for drivers, and an outright danger in some
cases. Due to our road designs being mostly car-centric and our laws, it is
hard to share the road with them.

We are required to give 1 metre clearance when driving at < 60km/h, and 1.5m
at 60km/h or over. If it is no other lane available and we cannot cross the
dividing line due to oncoming traffic, we are forced to reduce our speed to
that of the cyclist (which often means halving it or more) until we can
overtake them safely.

The government is attempting to retrofit bike lanes, but this does not remove
the requirement to give space, and the lanes are co-located with parking
spaces, which forces cyclists to move back onto the roads. This also leads to
a lot of mirrors being damaged, mostly accidental but some cyclists brag about
damaging cars that regularly park in the same place and block bike lanes. This
leads to a lot of resentment from car owners.

As an aside, cyclists are also allowed on our footpaths, and this has led to
quite a lot of pedestrians being injured by cyclists colliding with them at
speed.

I could go on about this at length, but the point is that there is a
considerable amount of frustration, resentment, and anger towards cyclists.

One of the major bones of contention is the government refusing to require the
registration of bicycles for road use (number plate) as it would discourage
bicycle use, which would be at odds with the government promoting it for
health benefits. But I know multiple people who've been injured or had there
cars side-swiped by cyclists, and have no recourse due to being unable to
identify them for a police report.

~~~
CalRobert
colocated with parking spaces???

Can you imagine doing that with a general traffic lane? "Oh here's your
motorway btw there might be cars parked in it"

That's worse than no lane at all.

~~~
close04
The problems with cycling is that the riders have both far more "flexibility"
in what they can do and get away with, and that many have zero "legal"
qualification to practice the activity. I say this as both a regular (daily)
cyclist and driver, and I find the 2 points dangerous to myself in both these
functions.

So the first point means many cyclists will just choose what kind of
participant to traffic they are at each moment: they will behave like a car or
pedestrian as they please, following car rules, pedestrian rules, or personal
rules depending on which fits them best. And not having a driver's license to
suspend means the rules are usually written on the spot. Traffic lights, stop
signs, are just informative. So many cyclists insist that requiring them to
wear a helmet is "victim blaming". [0] Not many would say the same about not
wearing a seatbelt.

For the second point, the lack of any formal education equivalent to a driving
school where you are told about the laws and best practices translates into
people being blissfully unaware when endangering themselves and others. Most
pedestrians and drivers will know the rules even if they don't follow them.
They are taught in school and sometimes from a young age. Cyclists fall in the
middle, neither this nor that.

[0] [https://www.dw.com/en/german-bike-helmet-ads-labeled-
stupid-...](https://www.dw.com/en/german-bike-helmet-ads-labeled-stupid-and-
sexist/a-48044927)

~~~
CalRobert
The problem with helmet laws is that it then means if you kill a cyclist who's
not wearing a helmet, people (even erroneously) apportion some blame to the
cyclist.

After all, why don't drivers wear helmets? Head trauma kills plenty of people
in car crashes.

Give it time, and eventually you start seeing people picked on while they're
walking, too. Our minister for transport wants to make it illegal to walk at
night without wearing a high vis vest.

[https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-03a.1396&s=t...](https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-03a.1396&s=term%2C+I+am+exploring+whether+the+wearing+of+high+visibility+clothing+is+better+achieved+by+way+of+educational+and+publicity+campaigns+run+by+the+Road+Safety+Authority#g1398.r)

Maybe instead of forcing everyone to dress like clowns, just don't hit people
with your car. Also, note that the safest places in the world for cycling
(Netherlands, Denmark) have very low helmet usage. They DO, however, have
presumed liability laws, meaning that the operator of the more dangerous
vehicle is presumed liable in a crash.

~~~
waste_monk
Having presumed liability laws sounds dreadful - you can really follow all the
road rules and still be found guilty, because a "less dangerous" vehicle
crosses your path and causes an accident?

Australian road rules are quite reasonable - all parties have a duty to try
and avoid accidents, but for example if a bicycle exits a footpath onto a lane
where you have an existing right of way and hit them, they would be at fault
for failing to give way, and also because any action that causes a vehicle
with right of way to change their behaviour can be considered dangerous
driving

~~~
CalRobert
Presumed liability doesn't mean drivers are _always_ at fault, but it does
mean that the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden
of proof.

If you operate a car on a city street where you _know_ there might be kids
running in to the street, then _you_ are the one introducing an element of
danger, not the kid. Similarly, if you drive by a child walking down the
sidewalk (pavement, walkway, depending on where you are), you should slow down
to aid in stopping on the off chance that child runs in to the street. Even if
it's your right of way.

Similarly, a cyclist might hit a pothole and fall, etc. and the reality is
that a slight scratch on your bumper will be death to them, so you have to be
more careful.

100, 110ish years ago, streets were full of people walking, horses, etc. It
would be ridiculous to say "well I had the right of way so I killed that
street vendor in my way". But enough drivers killed enough people using the
street and we decided to say it was the fault of the person using the street
as people had for millenia.

That, of course, makes driving less convenient - but then, cars make walking
and cycling massively inconvenient and we seem OK with that. Also, for
situations where you need long, uninterrupted stretches of high speed
motoring, limited access roads (aka motorways) exist, and there it's
reasonable not to expect pedestrians, cyclists, jaunting cars, etc.

~~~
close04
> the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden of
> proof.

Which many times means you are basically guilty by design. Witnesses may be
hard to come by and they are unreliable in all regards (memory, understanding
of what happened, honesty), and unless the country accepts dash cam videos and
you have one installed it means you're pretty much screwed as a driver.

------
sschueller
It will just alert the driver not actually limit. [1]

Many systems already exists like that. Even simple ones which you can set by
hand to a specific speed and it will beep when you go over.

[1] ""The Commission wanted to make it compulsory that the car would
automatically slow down to observe speed limits but we have secured a
compromise where the system merely has to alert the driver that he or she is
speeding," said Daniel Dalton, the Tory MEP for the West Midlands."

~~~
neverminder
> The speed limiter device, called intelligent speed assistance, or ISA, uses
> GPS data and sign recognition cameras to detect speed limits where the car
> is travelling, and then will sound a warning and automatically slow down the
> vehicle if it is exceeding the limit.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/all-new-uk-
car...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/all-new-uk-cars-to-have-
speed-limiters-by-2022-under-eu-plans)

~~~
mdekkers
My Volvo has sign recognition, and although it is quite good, it frequently
gets it wrong. It will pick up signs on the back of lorries/buses, as well as
signs for i.e. a neighborhood (5kmh) without subsequently picking up the fact
that I have moved out of that area, and am now allowed 50kmh. If this
erroneous behavior would translate to limited speed, I'd be extremely unhappy.

------
hamandcheese
It is surprising to me how many here are okay with nanny state policies like
this, yet are up in arms any time government tries to do anything that limits
our digital freedoms.

I know this doesn’t limit freedoms, per se, since it’s already illegal to
speed. But I find something about it deeply troubling.

------
dazbradbury
Why not enforced collision detection? Presumably that will prevent more
accidents than alerting for speed will.

Most manufacturers seem to have these systems already (even if they're
reserved as optional extras / high end models) - and it seems crazy that this
wouldn't be the first safety measure to apply.

Edit: Seems this story has been moderated:
[http://hnrankings.info/19498747/](http://hnrankings.info/19498747/) @dang -
any idea why? Seems a few stories about EU regs, but this is focusing on
motoring.

~~~
martin_bech
The bills will also include forced automatic emergency breaking/collision
detection.

~~~
dazbradbury
Ah nice! Thanks for enlightening me. That should be the headline (and in the
article at the very least)!

------
setquk
Non issue. This is just haptic feedback when you get to the limit. I hope it
does log the speed as well as the last two accidents on the road I live on
people were killed by idiots doing 40+ mph in a 20mph limit.

What is a problem is fixing this shit when it breaks. Which it will because it
adds to the bottom line cost of the vehicle so will be done by the lowest
bidder.

~~~
MaBu
If it is just haptic it's OK but the talk was at least in media that it would
be an actual speed limit which in current implementation is idiotic.

We have a new car which can read speed signs. In theory good idea. But tech
isn't where it should be. For example when you drive on highway 100 km/h with
130 km/h speed limit and the car is warning you that you are speeding because
it saw speed sign for 40 km/h on exit ramp it's a little worrying if car would
actually obey speed limit. Breaking from 100 to 40 for no reason by car itself
would not be good.

And there are also speed signs for only some vehicles which I don't think any
car can read and for example Austrian signs (30 km/h limit and then subtext
"valid only for side roads"). And another thing speed signs says limit is 50
km/h. It is valid up to next intersection. Intersection that invalidates speed
limit is defined as intersection with more then 4 housing units. It's
sometimes hard for human to know if intersection invalidates speed limit or
not. How would a car know?

------
RandomInteger4
Built in breathaliser is a horrible idea.

(1) It's an unnecessary limitation on personal freedom.

(2) It's a burden to people with lung issues.

(2a) It introduces the possibility or infectious disease spread, because
people share cars and are less likely to clean the breathaliser frequently
enough to prevent bacterial buildup.

(3) These things are garbage and often don't work the first time, especially
in the cold.

------
ensiferum
Right, so minor speeding is practically never a contributor in accidents. In
accidents where speeding was the cause it's typically not minor, i.e. someone
going 180km/h at 80km/h road.

I really like the current state of affairs here in Germany where speeding is a
minor office until around >40km/h at which point you'd get a 1 month driving
ban. This means that when the traffic conditions permit you can easily go that
10-20km/h faster and no harm done. (This applies to landstrasse)

FYI here's a table describing the fines for speeding:
[https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/german-driving-
laws/](https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/german-driving-laws/)

I bet in reality this is just about some instance wanting to have mandatory
GPS tracking in the vehicles for their own malicious purposes.

------
benj111
UK MEP:

"It is true that cars built in Britain will have to carry these safety systems
and standards if they are to be exported to the EU," Mr Dalton said. "But we
have also secured improved rules"

Its almost like having a seat at the table, for your biggest export market is
a good thing.

~~~
michaelt
If you were a Brit opposed to these speed limiters, surely you'd prefer "EU
speed limiters not needed in britain" to "EU speed limiters needed, but with
improved rules" ?

~~~
benj111
True, buts that's a separate issue to having a say on the rules of countries
you're trading with.

Plus you could replace Brit and Britain with EU (citizen) and it would still
be as true.

------
dev_north_east
I really dislike the prospect of more software in cars.

------
jillesvangurp
A sensible stepping stone towards full autonomous driving in the few remaining
years/decades that we are actually still allowed to risk each other's lives on
the road by driving ourselves. Once this stuff gets good enough, I expect
insurance and liability to make non automated driving increasingly more
expensive and restricted.

Obviously this plan will have a few hurdles to take before it becomes law.
Also, I expect e.g. the German car lobby to not like this at all as they do
like their no limits stretches of autobahn here.

------
Tharkun
Good. People have been driving too fast for too long. Too many people die in
car crashes. Speed is often the factor that determines whether you (or the
pedestrian they're hitting) lives or dies. Drivers have had plenty of time to
moderate their own behaviour, but they haven't. If they can't behave, they
should be forced to behave.

~~~
StreamBright
Speed is one factor but not everything:

\- Speeding

\- Driving under the influence of alcohol and other psychoactive substances

\- Nonuse of motorcycle helmets, seat-belts, and child restraints

\- Distracted driving

\- Unsafe road infrastructure

\- Unsafe vehicles

\- Inadequate post-crash care

\- Inadequate law enforcement of traffic laws

------
hnaccy
>The alert system will ensure drivers observe speed limits through GPS and
road sign recognition cameras.

So all new cars track you and can track others on the road as well?

Perhaps I am irrational nut but I always dislike state and technology taking
away agency from me.

------
imtringued
I can already see it happening. My car will randomly decide it is actually a
truck and slow down to 80km/h on a highway with a 130km/h speed limit and then
I get a fine in the mailbox.

------
merrua
This article is based on this press release from the commission
[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-19-1793_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-19-1793_en.htm)

------
angeal1131
I think a speed limit is good. EU's implementation? not sure about that. What
about driving by a slow driveR? you have to speed up above the limit to do
that.

It's about safety, and no street legal car should be driven above 140-160km/h
(87-100mph) on the highway; most people do not know how to handle a car above
80mph. It's really dangerous for both that car as well everybody around. IF
you drive on your own land, race track etc. then yeah, that's where it should
be allowed.

~~~
benj111
1\. This is a speed warning, not a limiter, it will just tell you when you're
speeding.

2\. If you're following a slow driver. By definition they will be going below
the speed limit. You yourself say people don't know how to handle a car at
80mph. Why then allow them to reach that speed to overtake?.

~~~
dev_north_east
> If you're following a slow driver. By definition they will be going below
> the speed limit

That doesn't mean it's safe. I had the terror of joining the motorway behind a
car doing 30mph last night. It kept that speed once we miraculously made it
onto the lane. It was an absolute menace.

~~~
0db532a0
I had a similar experience two nights ago where the car in front of me just
slowed down for no reason before joining. I was checking my shoulder and only
realised when it was too late.

It was either rear end him or join. My front wheel came off the ground in my
frantic attempt to gain the speed of the car just behind me. Fun times.

Maybe autonomous driving really is a good idea.

~~~
majewsky
Autonomous driving is an _amazing_ idea, we just don't have good-enough
implementations yet.

------
matthewfelgate
Sounds like a good idea. But I wished the cars would have a limit rather than
a warning.

------
sadris
Seems completely pointless as nobody will be driving cars by 2022. Self
driving will be available way before then.

