Does the Fourth Amendment mean anything to you?

it's private corporations that are tracking you. Should you break the law the government can access that information through the legal process if need be.

On the other hand, many small jurisdictions may be against this legislation because a significant amount of their revenue is derived from the issuance of speeding tickets and other traffic violations. Which they use to fund their communities and pad the budgets of their local governments.

It's not because I am going places I shouldn't, but because it's none of the Governments business where I am unless they have a warrant. I see no reason to usher in a suveillance state.

The purpose of having a "Big Government" is to have power against big corporations and billionaires, that "we the people" don't have power to fight.

Once "Big Government" is finished regulating corporations, then maybe they can start adding to the massive amount of laws already imposed on us.

the law and endanger lives? What exactly is your problem? You want to be able to break the law?

Also, not everything is black and white. There are many MANY parts of this country where 10 over isn't dangerous at all. In fact, the speed limit in many places is more than 10+ what it used to be, back when we were told going over 55 was "endangering lives".

In any case, you missed the point of that other reply and the post it replied to.

a flawed and false premise for an argument.
He thinks the same thing that I do (best I can tell). I 100% agree with speed limit laws. I also 100% disagree with this method of collecting evidence.
It is intrusive and violates one the the primary protections afforded by The Constitution. There is no provision for enforcing the law "by any means necessary". We should know better.

doesn't work.
If you don't know what The Constitution says, maybe you should try reading it.

that I never asserted that it included anything regarding speed limits, why are you arguing it?
You are claiming you've read it, but appear to be lost regarding it's actual content to which I am referring.
Or is it that you just think it's acceptable to subvert Constitutional protections if you simply agree with the goal in doing so?

This is the gov imposing restrictions on people. The person is only asking how this would be implemented. I wanna know how the “governor” would know the speed limit…

So many ?
And yours border implying maj is a criminal and doing things they shouldn’t.
Not cool!

Especially when they are the exception.

They’ve been tried on fleet vehicles many times to shift liability.

Punishing everyone based on the actions of a few. Like speed bumps.

Plus, they are a distraction as each driver has to negotiate their way over individual bumps. Not to mention the wear on vehicles and their drive trains, brakes, and other components.

Having them costs everyone without due process.

Saving children is a strawman and doesn’t fall under my regression argument. Instead it falls under dangerous. Fleet vehicles with hard governors have MORE accidents. That’s why even garbage trucks don’t have them.

Have seen many streets put them in to handle speeding, racing by kids. Issue gets replaced by kids speeding between the speedbumps so increased noise. Speed limit laws are in place, enforce the laws.

Fact.

Most people like to operate their vehicles safely and they don’t need anyone looking over their shoulder.

Because of my age, the motorcycle had to be no more than 50cc and speed restricted to 30mph. I never felt anyone was looking over my shoulder.

I doubt you ever took your training vehicle out on a major street or expressway. So, there’s no comparison.

the same way speed and acceleration are controlled by your cars computer now.

This is why the mileage tax will never go into effect, no one wants the government tracking their cars.

To do all day than to think of ways to make my money, their money.

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2024, 02:45 PM - Edit history (1)

that are always hitting things. Road surfaces vary all over the place so how and where are the sensors going to be installed for the governors to pick up on and regulated speed?

And sometimes more speed than 10-over is required...like passing on a two-lane road with an 18-wheeler fast approaching and you need to pass and get back in your lane.

This is a bad bill, too intrusive.

For little gain.

As I point out below, most people like to operate their vehicles safely and within the law.

Direct feedback speed limit signs have proven very effective.

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2024, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)

as at times 10 mph over the speed limit is needed.

Just a device that limits the speed.

in order to know what the speed limit is on the road you are driving. Depending on how that information can be accessed has potential 4A considerations.

Workaround would be to have a pre-set limit of 80 mph or whatever is 10 more than the highest speed. That would defeat many of the benefits however since people could still drive 80 on side streets.

The same tech could be used.

My GPS turns my speed numbers red on the "very rare occasions" I go 5+ over the speed limit. Obviously it is tracking the road I am on so is aware of the speed limit. While primarily one way communication, there is the potential that data could be used to track me as well. I'm sure in the TOS I blindly agreed to there is some phrasing that I have agreed my location data has only limited privacy.

If I don't use GPS, my car captures the speed limit signs, but, just as with GPS, it can show the wrong speed limit at times (for example, if going through a school zone after the school hours).

Either way, I think it's a bad idea. I don't want my car making those decisions for me.

If it can give out wrong information how can they be trusted to do this on their own?

to know what to limit the speed to.

And such devices CAN be wrong. If the tracker thinks you're on the service road parallel to the Interstate, you might have a severely restricted speed.

the government can track your whereabouts.

which combined with the built-in road mapping (such as found on a Garmin for example) is all that would be required. GPS is one-way - there is no location data transmitted to anywhere.

The Garmin GPS I have now alerts when I exceed the speed limit so the technology is nothing special.

doesn't necessarily mean they will track you. But make no mistake, the car will have to know where you are at all times for this to work at all.
Now imagine Trump wins the election and Don Jr. is put in charge of the FBI. Bannon is in charge of the DOJ, etc etc on down the line.
Now imagine you are a woman and want to drive to get an abortion in TX using a car that is speed controlled by the government.

where it, and the driver, are - that's what a GPS does. A GPS however does not transmit this information anywhere so the "government" could not use that to track you.

I don't understand what you are getting at with the woman in a speed limited car - are you saying the government could somehow send a signal to your car to slow it down?

with a factory GPS system is not just listening to sat timing in order to get your current location, it is also keeping a detailed history of where you have been based on this information. Given a foot in the door, this information can be collected and examined by government.
Don't think they will abuse this? Well I do, because history shows that they always do. Right now, when I press the post button, it is going through an NSA filter that is looking for whatever keywords it's been told to find. That fact isn't even disputed anymore. This speed limiting program will be no different, it's only a matter of time and corruption.
My point was that we always need to look across the fence and see who COULD be in power some day. That should be the level of scrutiny we apply to allowable government power and oversight. There are far more personalities that should never be trusted than there are those we could trust.
Once established, what if Abbot decides he needs to collect data and see who traveled to an abortion clinic? Think he won't do it or at least try it?

If not, it's just the fallacious "thin edge of the wedge" argument.

think is appropriate.
I like to think things ALL the way through to their potential outcomes. In this case, it's almost predictable.
I mean, something such as civil asset forfeiture that is grounded in very sound reasoning could never turn out working against us, right? Na, government wouldn't do that sort of thing. That would be a wedge argument too.

Speed limit is 40, so you can't do the necessary 80 to make it. Oh well, right?

Probably not feasible on older cars.

If it’s up to the individual, you are punishing the working poor again.

My point was that you’d like all old car fit with this (your previous post). I think that’s fine if the state pays for it.

In theory, I agree it’s ridiculous to have a speedometer that goes up to 200 MPH and up. I’m interested in seeing how they will implement it as well.

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2024, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I had read there was going to be a push from the right.

Democrats typically look at the science first.

Can't quite remember the poet's name.

The Walrus, he is an ugly brute,
Made entirely out of rubber,
Lounging on the shore all day,
Like discarded old whale blubber.

Sea Lion on the other hand,
Is arguably, I think quite cute,
Gliding along the beach at play,
In his slick grey leather suit.

Manufactureres and dealers don't offer freebies.

... I think mandating another cost increase will not endear our party to consumers, not to mention the people mad about the limit itself.

I wouldn't be that mad about the limit per se... I rarely drive faster than 10 mph over the limit, except on this one stretch of road here where there used to be a school. There is a stretch of the road where the limit is 25 mph because that's where the school was. The rest of the road is 50 mph. Nobody, and and I mean NOBODY drives 25 mph through that stretch... except when the cops put up their end-of-the-mponth speed traps. Gotta get those sweet, sweet quotas.

When the gps reads 10 over, then the cruise control would limit the speed to what the gps reads..
This would put a dent in those communities that make most of their money from speeders..
m

Not that it isn't a good idea, it's just not an idea whose time has come yet.

This story goes downhill fast, and it costs you tons with respect to engagement with the electorate.

Dems want a nanny state. Not a good idea. Which rep proposed this?

I passed a merging tractor trailer and a crowd of traffic. A cop in an unmarked car picked it up and followed me, but because I immediately slowed to the speed limit after I passed the truck, he didn't ticket or stop me. He knew I did the safe thing.

We don't need overrides on our speed, except maybe over 85 mph.

And cost me 1000s to fix. Good incentive, but I think it's hard and costly to implement. Thus, no one ever has before.

We always balance competing interests. One of those interests is cost. If you can make a devuice 0.1% more safe, but the cost is 500% more, is that a cost you are willing to incur? Those aren't arbitrary numbers.... I work in aviation and we deal with numbers like that all the time. It usually possible to make things safer. But we always draw a line at what we're willing to pay for it...

And I'm a Democrat, and I reject the "no matter the cost" stuff. In fact, that almost feels a bit like you're trolling....

You said no matter the cost. But the cost DOES matter. Always has and always will.

You are free to support this effort.

I think it is a massive, unwarranted overreach and I think if Democrats ingeneral support it, it will hurt us.

We could probably save vastly more lives by limiting the speed limit on the freeways to 30 mph. Do you see that working out? I sure don't. I think Mr. Wiener has made a grave miscaluclation about the risk tolerance of most people.

If you've ever had a sensor go out while driving, it's not fun. Lost a sensor on a BMW, suddenly the car wouldn't let me go over 35 while I'm on the freeway.

Lost a gas tank sensor on my Prius and it wouldn't start.

When they work, they can save lives, but if they fail . . . I doubt the legislator has done the math on cost and failure analysis.

Suddenly wouldn't shift out of 2nd gear. I was fearing a 4-figure transmission replacement, ended up being one of the speed sensors and only $50.

But I travel a lot, and was lucky that happened at home instead of being out west 200+ miles from the nearest dealer in a car that wouldn't get out of 2nd gear.

I have to wonder where you got them. Maybe lurk for a while and get a feel for what we really believe.

If there's one thing I really dislike, it's someone coming on here and telling what I believe and don't believe as a democrat.

Then we should outlaw private pools also then, right?

Every year in the US, 3,572 people die from drowning. Nine hundred and forty-five of them are children.

But children still drown, so if you think "any price to pay for saving one life" shouldn't we outlaw private pools & public pools with no lifeguards? (like hotel pools)

that can go double the highway speed limit.

Actually I haven't, they are cars and to Americans sacrosanct.

How many lives would be saved if this was nationwide? High speed chases would become history...

and it is interesting when the question of what one "needs" affects others how attitudes change.

There are other parallels, such as "if it saves one life" but I doubt it will persuade anyone.

Or do you have the hopped-up one, the one with 180 horsepower?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Matrix

Wouldn't a less-powerful car have been a more responsible choice?

Would the world be better if Government made us all do and believe as you do?

Regardless of it's merits, it;s a political disaster that we simply can't risk right now.
It's a retirement decision for politicians who vote for this.

It also messes with the ability to safely pass slow moving vehicles, which, if you live in a rural area of the state, is a situation that happens frequently, but not frequently enough that if you have a scheduled destination you have to get to, you would be planning your commute with an additional half hour to an hour to get to where you need to be, just because you may be stuck for 20 miles behind a truck hauling, say, livestock or construction equipment that has to maintain a below speed limit progress on the only highway in or out your location.
Or you may have a medical emergency in your house or with a pet, and the nearest first responder or ambulance is an hour away. You're going to drive as quickly as you safely can, and especially on rural roads, that can easily be more than 10 miles over a posted limit for a particular section of road.

Haele

My Dad was working in his workshop. He made a mistake and wound up seriously injuring his wrist. Amonst other things, he had cut his radial artery. There was a lot of blood. I applied a tourniquet and got him to the car. I drove... significantly ABOVE 10 MPH over the limit to the Emergency room. I picked up a cop on the way. When I rolled up on the ER entrance and he saw me pull my blood soaked Dad out of the car, his expression went from "You're in big trouble" to "OH SHIT! Let me help you!" in a split second.

I could not wait for an ambulance... my Dad would have bled out.
I could not dawdle at 30 mph through my neighborhood. My Dad would have bled out.
As it was, he was barely conscious when we got to the ER and the docs said it was a close run thing.

So that's just one time I've felt justified in violating the speed limit by a significant amount.

My claim is simple: I think there are times where speeding is justified. The fact that you'd be willing to sacrifice my ability to do what I did in the name of statistics is not of any interest to me.

If my Dad had died that day, it would have been of no comfort that statistically it was probably better.

Yes, that's an emotional response. Human's are emotional animals. We must consider those basic emootions in our calculations and risk assessments. We could all be much safer if we limited highway speeds to 30 mph. Do you see any circumstance where people would tolerate that?

say to the tens of throusands of victims of speeding drivers?

He was fine after a number of surgeries... he always have some damage in that hand afterward, but he lived!