By on July 1, 2021

Svitlana Pimenov/Shutterstock.com

Carscoops is reminding us that a law passed in 2019 is mandating that new cars introduced after 2022 must be fitted with speed limiters.

Here’s the good news, at least for us Yanks and Canucks — the law was passed by the European Union and applies to, well, Europe.

That said, Carscoops is sounding the alarm. Could speed limiters come to North America?

To be clear, the limiters don’t appear to make it physically impossible for drivers to go over the speed limit, but rather the tech uses things like flashing lights to get the driver’s attention so he/she can slow down.

While we applaud efforts to reduce accidents, we find tech limiting speed at this level to be a bridge too far. It’s one thing for automakers to limit speed at levels we’d never even attempt to attain on public roads — lots of cars are capped by the factory, usually at 155 — or to set a speed limiter to match the tires’ speed rating. It’s another to be this heavy-handed.

The tech supposedly uses a combo of GPS and traffic-sign recognition, and we’d point out that sometimes both technologies fail. We also don’t like the idea of having our speed clipped without providing for context — even those who mostly maintain the limit occasionally climb above to execute a pass more safely. And do I want my car screaming at me during a medical emergency that requires me to drive faster?

I get it. There are some birdbrains out there doing 50 in 25 mph residential zones where kids are playing, and that’s not cool. But context matters. Ten over on the interstate is less objectionable — and probably less dangerous — than 10 over in the congested city. And drivers should be able to make that choice for themselves, without a safety nanny scolding them.

Carscoops’ actual evidence for the emergence of this tech in America is thin — the site cites a video from a British motoring journalist and also makes the “hey it could happen here, but there’s no strong evidence it will” argument. I realize I could be simply aggregating a blog that’s mind to catch clicks on a slow news day in our own attempt to have content (and thus catch clicks).

Or this could be one of those creeping privacy invasions this site is constantly screaming about. Remember, even if the feds never do something like this, it could, in theory, be done at the state level, though I’d imagine OEMs would kick and scream to avoid building cars both for states with and without speed limiters, because of the extra cost of building vehicles with separate tech for differing states.

I can’t foresee these coming to America (or Canada). But we’ll keep a wary eye out just the same.

[Image: Svitlana Pimenov/Shutterstock.com]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

67 Comments on “Are Speed Limiters Coming to American Cars?...”


  • avatar
    theflyersfan

    I think this stands as much of a chance as 85mph speedometers making a return. As written in the article, there are too many factors that can make automatic reading of signs impossible, different states and countries have different rules, and as long as we have free travel to all 50 states, and easy driving into Canada, Mexico, and Central America, I don’t see this happening at all. Heck, we can drive into part of France via a short ferry ride from Newfoundland, so there’s different signage and regulations there.

    And the second that/if automakers try the flash lights/make noise/cut power if a certain speed is exceeded, you know the aftermarket is going to be all over that in a millisecond.

    Plus, where is the revenue generation from speeding going to come from?

    Then again, I’m firmly in the camp that outside of urban areas, the minimum speed limit should be 75mph and in flat, safer areas for high speed – think huge chunks of Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma – 85mph. And the limits should be flexible based on traffic, weather, construction, and time of day.

    • 0 avatar
      ravenuer

      All good points.

    • 0 avatar
      tankinbeans

      While I agree that speed limits on the freeway could be increased, lane discipline leaves A LOT to be desired. Minnesota recently passed the law requiring that you drive right except to pass, making it a primary offense to lollygag in the left lane. It hasn’t done anything. You still have people going 5 under in the left lane, next to people going 2 under in the right lane. There are still people hauling glampers taking up space on all sides, not getting anywhere near the limit.

      Last summer I was driving in South Dakota where the limit is 80 mph for large portions of I90. Couldn’t maintain it because of the aforementioned glampers.

      • 0 avatar
        theflyersfan

        @tankinbeans. Exactly. Anyone who has driven in Germany knows, while there are the 70hp Fiats and Dacias that can sometimes linger in the speed lane, the lane discipline (punishable by fine) is epic. I saw people actively try to get right lane as soon as possible compared to here with the left lane cloggers. Just this morning, there had to be close to a 1/4 mile parade of drivers stuck behind a driver clogging the left lane.

        It all falls back to education and enforcement. Seat belts, lights on in rain/fog/dawn/dusk/snow, turn signals, lane discipline. Not that difficult to follow the rules when piloting a 5,000 lb SUV in traffic and can critically injure or kill someone in an accident.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      “Safe and Prudent” is the only legitimate speed limit. You haven’t done anything wrong until “they” can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you meaningfully endangered someone.

      Doesn’t preclude “data driven” “experts” from posting speed limits for stretches of road, which you’d need quite the argument to argue is not the upper limit of safe and prudent. But it does preclude “speed limiters” closig down eve the opportunity for argument. Ultimately, before harassing you, “they” still need to get past that pesky innocent until PROVEN, to properly hard standards not just “some arbitrarily anointed ‘expert’ said so to some schmuck parading around in a Hefner style robe”, guilty.

    • 0 avatar
      kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh

      The general populace cannot be allowed to drive 85.. they’d roll their cars and kill their kids and themselves every time they looked at their phones and jerked the SUV/TRUCK back into their lane and fishtail it

  • avatar
    Rich Fitzwell

    Carbon shut down days are coming too.

    Attention citizens, stay off the road, no ICE cars allowed, only EVs, emission levels are dangerously high.

    Attention citizens.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      They already have this for congestion in some cities, for example São Paulo. Depending on the day only even or odd license plates are allowed during rush hour.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    In Texas speed limits have “suggestive” character.

    “Texas is one of very few states which uses a “prima facie” or “presumed” speed limits. This means you are permitted to drive above legal speed limits if conditions allow.”

    • 0 avatar
      theflyersfan

      I write this after having driven I-10 across Texas years ago and then decided that sometimes flying is better. Except for El Paso, San Antonio, and Houston’s epic, monumental, and never-ending sprawl, there isn’t much out there. The speed limit signs should be replaced with the sign that has the circle with diagonal slashes through it.

      It’s a while off, but I understand that the under construction I-14 that will act as a “Northern I-10” through the heart of Texas from near San Angelo to (maybe) the Houston area will take a lot of pressure off of I-10. Set the speeds like that tollway from Austin to I-10…

  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    So, to be clear:

    (i) They’re not coming to American cars
    (ii) They don’t actually limit speeds

    Sounds scary.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    The safety-above-all fanatics never saw a speed limit they didn’t want to lower.

    Recently, the manager of California’s electric grid asked (not ordered) EV owners to avoid charging between 5 and 10 pm due to the load on the grid by other users. The EV market share is still pretty small. What will it be like when half or more of the vehicles on the road are pure electric?

    • 0 avatar
      dukeisduke

      Uh, widespread blackouts?

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Half the vehicle pool won’t be pure electric for decades. I’m sure the grid can keep up.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      Just as one anecdotal reference, my traffic-sign assist in my Accord will flash the 20mph School Limit sign on the indicator, despite school not being in session! (Of course, that doesn’t matter a bit to some sheeple: I once followed someone crawling along at that speed at 1am on a July Sunday morning!)

      Fortunately if this dystopian nightmare ever did come to pass, there might still be a software reprieve: a few times while driving in the endless, life-sucking nightmare that is the I-75 construction zone into downtown Toledo, the camera has misinterpreted the variable-limit sign in one portion of the route and flashed “Limit 100!”

  • avatar
    Halftruth

    They’ll make driving as annoying and unfun as possible until you are forced to take public transportation.

    Speed alerts will be accompanied by Flo or the gecko popping up on your center stack “warning” you of potential rate increases if you don’t slow down. Additional warnings such as “Drive like your kids live here” will also prod drivers into slowing down.

    Great times we’re headed to..

    • 0 avatar
      theflyersfan

      For around 4 months or so, I used an insurance company app to lower my rates. Had to drive like a crate of raw eggs was over my head and my elderly grandmother was riding along. It worked – my rates did lower – but while it was beyond easy to fall from an A to a B- after a couple of hard stops or a burst of speed to pass, getting it back up to an A was harder than anything out there.

      Not sure if companies/apps like Root require it running the entire time you are covered by them.

      So, we’re already heading into the abyss you wrote about…

      • 0 avatar
        tankinbeans

        I have one of those doohickeys currently. The first renewal period actually saved the 45% or so and was a not insignificant sum of money, but I do not know how the bozos programmed what counts as an “incident”, except to say that I’m fairly sure they don’t know how driving works. I regularly get dinged for making a 90° across traffic after slowing to about 15ish give or take. It considers that aggressive. Also, getting onto the freeway and accelerating is a no-no.

        I’m waiting to see what the next renewal is so I can decide whether I should keep it.

        • 0 avatar
          tankinbeans

          To be clear, I drive like I normally do and just let things fall where they may. I ain’t got time to be super concerned about jiggling the car, which seems to be something the dongle parts attention to.

          My “driving score” tends to hover in the high 70s or low 80s.

        • 0 avatar

          I would like to try one of these, except that the electric record would render me uninsurable, despite my clean record and our last accident being my teen five years ago. One shot down one of my reference roads/on ramps…I’d blow every single parameter….poof

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          Perhaps that explains why every entrance to a freeway is a sphincter-tightener — all the idiots merging at fifteen below the posted have those dongles dangling from their dashes!

  • avatar
    dal20402

    I’d happily make this trade:

    – removal of limits, or much higher limits, on rural interstates that are smooth and straight enough to support them, for

    – electronic limiters on city streets.

    I am absolutely f#cking sick of idiots blasting up my residential street at 70 mph and welcome any technology that will stop them from doing so, not once every few months when a cop bothers to stop by, but every damn time.

    • 0 avatar

      You won’t get that trade. I’ve had many conversations, trust me, the folks putting cams on your street, an evil combination of camera vendors, politicos who see this as free money, and anti-car forces, absolutely salivate at the concept of getting them on interstates….

      I too have a residential street. There’s a speed control stop sign in front of my house. We refer to it as the 2nd to 3rd gear upshift point, based on the typical car passing it. I tend to leave my battered truck in the street as a chicane.

      In Germany where they run cams on highways, the speed limits are dynamically set with movable signs. When the unrestricted becomes 130 becomes 100, you’d better cut the hyperdrive, there is a reason….and because they post unrestricted whenever they can, you trust the signs….

      Sadly, we won’t get that deal. Hell, we can’t even get above 65 in NY State…..and free flow on the Thruway is 75-90.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Would you rather have me advocating for speed limiters, or to ban cars in the city? Because that’s what it’s coming to with the epidemic of irresponsible driving. I can’t take my kid for a walk the neighborhood without fearing for his life from drivers driving 15, 20, 25 over. We have pedestrian-heavy streets where the 85th percentile speed is over 40 mph. That can’t stand.

        And the driving here is more reasonable than it is in a lot of other cities where I’ve lived (such as the one near you, where most people appear to treat red lights as optional).

        • 0 avatar

          You might want to ask the Town to put up some speed-nag signs, they are solar powered and my town has a few-they work. We lowered a few areas to 25 and the local PD actively enforce those zones. I am always entertained by the fact that when the speed complainers get caught speeding themselves they always try to play for a zero point plea deal and have ‘an excuse’. Ah, local politics…..

          I know I’ll never see this, but I’d love it if a component of VZ was pedestrian awareness. It is just assumed walking into an active street with your eyes locked on the iPhone is OK. NYC has gotten scary that way. Cross at the Green, not In-Between was a great slogan, we need to revise it.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            You and I have a fundamental disagreement about the purpose of city streets. I think they are for people and cars should be guests. You think the opposite. In the city, it should be the driver who has to adjust to the oblivious pedestrian on his iPhone, not the other way around. I use that approach when driving, and it got me through five years of full-time professional driving in the city and ~20 years of everyday driving since then without incident.

            The roads that should be designed for cars first are the ones where people can’t go—limited-access highways and rural roads.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ In the city, it should be the driver who has to adjust to the oblivious pedestrian on his iPhone, not the other way around.”

            Now do light rail trains that have infected cities.

            It’s the primary responsibility of the pedestrian to be aware of their surroundings enough so as they are not risking death. If they act careless that’s on them. Streets are for cars. A pedestrian vs car will never end in the pedestrian’s favor. The sooner the arrogant morons that walk all over areas they are not supposed to realize that, the sooner deaths will go down.

            Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “streets are for cars”

            This seems about consistent with the intellectual level of your Ford rants. Cars are 130 years old; streets are over 5000 years old. Streets were for people for millennia, and cars executed a hostile takeover only about 70 years ago.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ This seems about consistent with the intellectual level of your Ford rants. Cars are 130 years old; streets are over 5000 years old. Streets were for people for millennia, and cars executed a hostile takeover only about 70 years ago.”

            That’s the argument you’re going with while questioning the intellectuality of my (fact based) posts?

            This is a battle of wits and you’ve come vastly unprepared. What a asinine argument. I assume you walk everywhere then because “that’s what they did back then”.

            Idiot.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Your posts are about as “fact based” as the young-earth creationism espoused by many people with your political views.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            See kids, this is an example of when you know you’ve won the argument.

            In this case, the wrong party is bringing up young earth creationism in a discussion about roads and streets being for cars and pedestrians having a personal responsibility in keeping themselves alive.

  • avatar
    dontsh00tmesanta

    Good, no one needs a car that does over 100mph or 0 to 60 in 2 seconds. But wait….this is murica. We are cars and guns. Won’t ever change woot.

    • 0 avatar
      Kendahl

      You’re right that I don’t need a car like my Infiniti G37S coupe. My first car, a 1962 VW Beetle with a top speed of 80 mph, would be good enough even today. I also wouldn’t need to work hard enough to earn the price difference between the Infiniti and the VW.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      I have found that one’s opinion of what one “needs” corrosponds with what they can afford for the most part. If someone desires more than what they have, they don’t “need” it.

      The problem with your logic is that at the end of the day, nobody really “needs” more than what we provide to inmates for the most part.

      As you point out though, this is America thank God and my needs are frankly none of your business so go pound sand.

  • avatar
    dontsh00tmesanta

    Nope

  • avatar

    I lobbied with the National Motorist’s Association during 55 to get limits raised…and we succeeded.
    The current risk are the Vision Zero ideas, which are being used by camera vendors and cities to raise massive revenue. NYC lowered their limit from 30 to 25 so they could trigger the shutter at 35…and most folks maybe peaked 38 before slowing for the next light, but a 30 limit didn’t make money with a shutter at 40. Chicago did one better and lowered the shutter speed from 10 over to 6 over, and the number of violations went up by a factor of 10….they are past any safety argument, now it’s clearly tax farming.

    What may arguably make some sense in a congested, pre auto cityscape, becomes Orwell on a highway. I was sadly impressed when I drove in the UK, at both the number of cameras, and the Average Speed cameras (aka Yellow Vultures…at least they mark them).

    US signs are harder to read, as they are rectangles, and all EU signs have that circle around a number….we had this system in a rental Toyota, and while it didn’t change the car at all, it did put in your display the speed limit sign. I think this is a technical issue.

    The current danger is in the current Transportation Bill, the VZ forces are working hard to undermine the 85th percentile rule, that a speed limit should be set by the 85th percentile of free flow traffic. This combines efficiency with cutting the wings of the too fast set, and is supported by years of highway engineering. Now, in a pre-auto city-scape, this might need modification…but the danger is, once the VZ and anti-car folks get their way in the City, this sort of nonsense will make its way onto free flow interstates.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Probability of pedestrian death in a pedestrian/car collision, by speed of car:

      20 mph: 10%
      25 mph: 30%
      30 mph: 50%
      35 mph: 70%
      40 mph: 90%
      45 mph: >99%

      Reducing city speeds by 5 mph is, in fact, a big deal. The 85th percentile rule should be abolished anywhere where there are pedestrians, and speeds should be set to keep them safe.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        Imagine if pedestrians stayed where they belong….on a sidewalk? Then the probability of death is statistically zero.

        What a concept

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Pedestrians are killed on sidewalks, and in crosswalks where they have right of way, routinely. Especially the sidewalk fatalities usually arise from drivers who are speeding and lose control. The crosswalk fatalities tend to be more from distracted driving.

          Anyone who’s ever spent more than a day or two of tourism walking in a city knows that following all the rules for walking only protects you from cars a bit.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            The amount of people killed on sidewalks is statistically zero. Most anyone killed in a crosswalk is due to a failure of the pedestrian. Just because you’re walking doesn’t mean you can just absolve yourself of any personal responsibility.

            Of course, you probably think that when a train that hits a pedestrian, it’s the train’s fault.

            Sit down dude you are way out of your league.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “The amount of people killed on sidewalks is statistically zero.”

            And you’re telling me I’m out of my league? LOL.

            Some facts (all from IIHS data):

            – About one out of every five roadway deaths is a pedestrian
            – About four of five pedestrian deaths are in urban areas
            – About one of four of those deaths occurred on a sidewalk

            Do the math and you’ll find that is several pedestrians killed on sidewalks every single day. There is essentially no circumstance in which a pedestrian death on a sidewalk can possibly be the pedestrian’s fault.

            Or you could choose, like you have, to bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing is ever a driver’s fault.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            Ah yes. The IIHS. A “safety” institute would never inflate the numbers of traffic deaths so as to maintain their self aggrandizing relevancy.

            Try again kiddo.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Yes, this is how I’ve come to expect that arguments with Trumpists will go. The non-Trumpist side brings facts from a widely accepted source, and the Trumpist spends a lot of time disputing the legitimacy of the source but doesn’t actually dispute the facts, or, if they do, their sources are straight out of conspiracy la-la land.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            dal,

            In my suburb, pedestrians run in the bike line more often than on the sidewalks. The danger is that there are a lot of trees on this particular street and on sunny days, it’s difficult to see if anyone is running on the shoulder or bike lane. Only a matter of time before one of them is hit and either seriously injured or killed.

            I continue to see this in other parts of LA as well.

            There are perhaps 30% of pedestrians staring at their cell phones as they cross busy intersections.

            I’m all for protecting pedestrians and bicyclists, but the stupidity of a large percentage of runners and pedestrians to invite bodily harm is alarming.

            I know you’re not defending this type of idiocy and carelessness, but it’s part of the problem.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Just the other day, I saw a commercial vehicle marked with a sign that said its speed was governed to 65 or maybe 70 mph. I guess that’s because they don’t trust their employees, and/or to reduce road rage when the vehicle is slower than everyone else.

    Other than that, I’d say no, this isn’t going to happen. It’s right up there with gun rights and the ever-threatening OBD-III.

    On the other hand, in the 1970s and 80s it was sport to strip malaise cars of emissions equipment to make them run better. A speed limiter would become public enemy #1 in the same way.

    Besides, who needs speed limiters when we have red light cameras and drones policing us?

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      The governors are most likely mandated by the employer’s insurer, and if governors ever end up on private cars it will also be the insurers that are responsible, at least in large part.

    • 0 avatar
      modelt1918

      Commercial vehicles are limited to a certain speed because of fuel mileage. Price of fuel goes up and companies start lowering the top speed of their trucks.

  • avatar
    KOKing

    Just do the 70s/80s Japan market speed chime and those of a certain demographic would be thrilled that they’re in Initial D Mode.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Thinking about this more and the issue goes well beyond whether there should be limiters: it’s that we need completely different things from vehicles inside and outside cities.

    Right now, our vehicles are designed almost totally for travel needs outside and between cities. They are capable of traveling very long distances in great comfort and at great speed. For trips as long as 1000 miles they are legitimately the best, and often also the most efficient, mode of transport.

    But in cities they are at once too fast, big, clumsy, isolated, and hard to see out of. They lend themselves to irresponsible use and are an enormous public safety hazard. And they are ludicrously inefficient compared with other modes optimized for short-distance travel.

    Perhaps what we need to square this circle is to reinvent urban areas along the model now used by luxury resorts. Have areas of up to a couple square miles where people have housing, food, shopping, childcare, schools, and medical care available within the area, and where people usually walk but can use golf carts if they have trouble walking or to deliver supplies within the area. Park the conventional cars outside or underneath and then use them for medium- to long-distance travel. This would keep current cars the way they are for the things they are good at while reducing the need to use them for the things they are bad at.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Ending suburban to urban commuting for white collar jobs would probably be the biggest help. Making it not cost all the money to live in urban areas would be the second biggest.

    • 0 avatar
      Kendahl

      I now live in a neighborhood of 500 residents about 15 miles from a city with a population of 11,000. Nobody is going to build the amenities you listed in my neighborhood. When I lived in an urban area with a population of a million, those amenities were spread farther apart than two miles.

      Before I retired, I had colleagues who lived in small towns 30 miles outside the city. They considered their commute to be part of the price of living where they wanted.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Like I said, “reinvent.” Today’s urban agglomerations in the US are the worst of both worlds: you’re trapped without a car, and at the same time you can’t escape congestion and traffic in your car.

        We are facing a cumulative shortage of several million houses in the U.S. Build them along this model, and show the existing areas what’s possible. People spend ludicrous amounts of money to vacation in a resort atmosphere, and they would love to live in one too if they thought it were possible.

    • 0 avatar
      Yankee

      I resisted commenting because I didn’t want to sound like the old man that I am (“people drive too fast nowadays!”), but you said it better. Aside from people’s poor habits, constant distraction, etc., today’s vehicles insulate you from the feeling of speed so much that the laws of physics come as a sudden surprise to the soccer mom in the SUV following too closely and driving too fast while sharing a chicken recipe on her cell phone. Hopefully with more vehicles going to digital gauges the difference between 30 and 50 will be visible, rather than a dash or two on a stupid 150-mph speedometer. Most vehicles are not even capable of the top speeds they have on the dial, but manufacturers and buyers think it looks cool. Not sure if better awareness of speed will change people’s habits though. I have the same problem as you on my street. (Note to EBFLex: they don’t make many neighborhoods with sidewalks anymore to save cost.)

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        It’s the same thing when dealing with low speed limits!

        On a two-lane road with one twelve-foot lane in each direction plus a center turn lane, I feel absolutely NOTHING happening with the car at 25mph! Don’t even get me started on 20mph! It’s a visual thing! On a twenty-foot wide residential street without dividing lines and cars parked on each side of the street, 20mph is more than adequate!

    • 0 avatar
      SPPPP

      The “resort” model of neighborhood planning you mention here makes the most sense to me. Restricting the number of car and pedestrian thoroughfares between neighborhoods would drastically restrict the number of crossings between pedestrian and car thoroughfares. That would make it easier in terms of traffic control, and amenities like pedestrian bridges could more easily be installed at those fewer locations.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “the limiters don’t appear to make it physically impossible for drivers to go over the speed limit, but rather the tech uses things like flashing lights to get the driver’s attention so he/she can slow down.”

    …and log the event and GPS coordinates to the cloud either via satellite or wifi.

    Dear Citizen,

    We’ve decided to brick your EV for:

    1. your numerous violations of the 3,000 page vehicle code no one has ever read.
    OR
    2. your social credit score has dropped below 400.
    OR
    3. something, something, Manbearpig.

    XO
    The Politburo.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    God forbid we just teach people to drive rather than just inventing a new, electronic government nanny to try and prevent crashes.

    All these systems and nannies that have been mandated have only made people worse drivers. Nothing more.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    120 years ago, if you wanted to go someplace faster than walking, you rode a horse or took a train. Nowadays, long-distance train riding and horseback riding are a leisure activity. In another 50 years, owning and operating a human-operated car will be relegated to a leisure activity.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    In a sense many vehicles have built into them a speed limiter. When my 99 S-10 was new I went over 90 mph and the engine cut off on me (I thought I had blown my engine) and then when it went down to 80 mph the engine came back on. I don’t really care if there is some kind of speed limiter as long as it is reasonable but I don’t want flashing lights or for a siren to go off. I could live with limiting at 80 mph especially since most of my driving is urban.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Or we could shift to a traffic enforcement model that is based around safety with realistic limits (some places will be higher, some lower) that are set based on safety versus our current system that exists as a funding source for various levels of Government.

    In short, hammer the dude rolling 70 through a neighborhoood…leave the dude going 85 on a wide open interstate alone.

    And enforce lane discipline.

  • avatar
    conundrum

    Trucks are limited to 110 mph now, many German cars in the US to 130. Because? They install cheapo OEM tires from new, and don’t want blowouts.

    The European Union didn’t pass the limiter laws, it’s a conglomeration of countries. Nor did the European Parliament. The goofball European Commission bureaucrats supposedly directed by the Parliament, which itself is a joke but a good paying job for representatives nobody back in their home countries even know the names of, made the regulation, and Germany told them to take a long walk off a short wharf. These are the same twits who cannot work out a joule to joule comparison of liquid fuels to generated electricity. Accidentally on purpose, for a good decade and a half now. Policy, y’know. Who actually runs policy, or more properly, decides what it will be are unelected, presumably influenced by money, like everywhere else. Someone figured ou how to make a profit, and bingo, there you are, a new regumalation.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I thought most vehicles had speed limiters and 110 mph for trucks seems reasonable. I cannot get too upset about speed limiters as long as they allow you to go at least 80. As for cheapo tires manufacturers have been installing them for years and they can be replaced by better tires. Manufacturers don’t want you to drive too fast otherwise you will not get close to the mpgs they post. MPGs drop significantly when you drive 80 or above.

  • avatar

    Everyone…kindly refrain from using IIHS for literally anything. The only place our interests as drivers coincide with IIHS is the crash testing, and that is only because NHTSA hasn’t kept up with the times… I’ve spent years reading their nonsense, and every study they do is for lower speed limits, more enforcement, and more limitations…period. Those of us who recall 55 mph NMSL and the battle to remove it know IIHS makes stuff up and writes the study to support it. IIHS is fully owned by the insurance companies, they aren’t an unbiased observer-great fans of 55 mph, and they LOVED the 85 mph speedo. They never met a heavy hammer penalty, enforcement mechanism or camera they didn’t love. We’d be the UK camera hell if it was up to them.

    Also, this isn’t Streets Blog, who has a 100% anti car agenda and then will twist whatever to match it. The streets are for pedestrians argument never met a horse, or why sidewalks were invented, prior to the auto…..it wasn’t some safe nirvana with thousands of horses in NYC streets, and streetcars elsewhere. I enjoyed their “the invention of Jaywalking” revisionist history but that doesn’t mean it is true.

    Segregation of traffic is, interestingly, OK for Streetsblog when it is a hard median bike lane demanded by the 1% who use a bicycle in an urban enviroment, but not for pedestrians. Sidewalks for peds…hard bike lanes for bikes (riding a bike in a big city on the street in the US is a risk I won’t take….meat on a stick). We may argue all we want, but the Germans have a great saying “They’ll put But He Had Right of Way” on the tombstone….There is a reason we don’t allow horses on the interstate…it all comes down to speed differentials.

    Dedicated bus lanes ? Sure. Light Rail ? Sure. I’m not against changing the streetscape, including closing streets where valid to all auto traffic, but putting essentially stationary bikes on a moving roadway is an invitation for disaster and the answer is segregate users according to type, not reform the entire system back to 1800.

    Why can’t I walk on a railroad right of way ? People existed in the woods long before trains were invented.

    A ped always has right of way, full stop, but encouraging safe habits appears to be missing from the VZ mindset, in lieu of car hatred.

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      Non-IIHS data on Pedestrian injuries and deaths:
      https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/query

      Select the “Pedestrians” tab, then select any of the “Sample Queries” on the right-hand side of the page and then hit the green “Submit” button. [Note that you can modify a sample query or build your own.]

      Here are some summary-level reports on Pedestrians:
      https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#!/PublicationList/36

      This link will download the 2018 report (pdf):
      https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812850

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Freeways are fine (except where established neighborhoods were demolished to build them). We’re talking about city streets, where there are going to be pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-car users, because a good city street isn’t just a car thoroughfare, but a destination with lots of reasons for people to stop. Fast-moving cars ruin city streets; from outside a car, they change the feeling from a welcoming place into a forbidding and hostile one. Good cities abroad just don’t have fast car movement in the central city. Freeways bypass cities instead of going right through them, and visitors from out of town park in central parking and then walk between in-city destinations. A lot of things would have to change to get the US into that situation, but not accepting that a 30+ mph car is something that should ever be on a city street would be a good start.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • stuki: Population will be controlled. Gaia will be fine. But control will be by external-to-humans factors. Any...
  • stuki: “Retro styling for the youths makes no sense to me.” Parents rebelled against grandparents by...
  • stuki: “They may not be able to use it very well,” At least they may be able to see it….. For old...
  • Goatshadow: The grille and the tailgate are both abominations, and the wheel arches are the usual Toyota truck...
  • rudiger: Well, there was the Fiero. I’m not sure if the Vega caught fire; it was more of an overheating issue...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber