Virginia passes law to enforce maximum vehicle speeds for repeat speeders

Here are the votes: https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1767611

ETA: click the "Votes" tab.

These were the sponsors.

Patrick Hope (D)*, Betsy Carr (D), Holly Seibold (D)

So, really not sure how the author got to "Republicans in Virginia"

lol I had shared the original article to a group with the comment "rare republican policy win" and then had to immediately retract that after reading your comment

In NY, we operate on a 11 point system. Gain 11 points and lose your license.

The only problem is a decent percentage of people plead to the courts that they need their vehicle to work and hence get let off

Yes, they already have this type of point system in VA. What is the point of allowing this device when they will suspend or revoke your license after a few infractions. Additionally, you'd need to have generational wealth to afford the insurance at that point. On top of that, they have an extensive bus system in the northern VA area and biking routes so it would be pretty hard for someone to say they have some hardhip where you need to keep driving.

I think this will just be another thing leading us to full surveillance state.

Most US states have similar point systems.

In the UK you also have police visit you over shitposts, and you receive incessant mail demanding you pay a license for owning a TV

Many places in the United States use speed traps as revenue streams, and in many of the same places in the US it's nigh impossible to get around without a vehicle.

Taking someone's license away for getting caught doing 5 over a few too many times on the freeway where literally everyone is always doing 5 over and you are more of a danger by not going the speed of traffic doesn't in any way serve the public interest as far as I can tell. It's a death sentence for a victimless crime.

Aggressive driving, reckless driving, major speed infractions (15 mph+ over), etc are far more dangerous and worthy of major penalties.

You're using a highly regulated piece of equipment that kills over 40,000 people in America annually. What do you feel is the appropriate balance?

How is this different to driving around with a mobile phone on?

You could do it without any surveillance. Just have a feature in the car where the ECU will limit the speed when e.g. programmed via the CAN-bus.

Such speed limits are quite common. E.g. mopeds in Finland have been (mechanically) speed limited for decades. Electric bikes are also limited to not supply force above 25km/h (IIRC).

The problem is people who as matter of course travel above the speed limit regardless of if any other motorists are around them, as they are “playing by different rules”, making them more unpredictable and stressful for those around them.

Just two days ago I did a long distance trip and in general I could engage cruise control at the speed limit allowing me to focus more on other potential hazards around me.

Occasionally I would need to move out the left lane (I live in country where we drive on the left side of the road) to overtake someone travelling slower than me, and somewhat often while in the process of overtaking, someone who was going 20+km/h over the speed limit would drive at a completely unsafe following distance behind me until 30s later or so when it would be possible for me to move back into the left lane.

I don’t care much if other people want to speed past me, but I’m not going to slow down or unlawfully speed for them to do so, so this makes these situations way more and needlessly stressful.

No doubt at least some of these other drivers regard me as the unsafe driver in these situations.

If people would rather just generally use cruise control themselves at the speed limit, the roads would be more predictable, it would be safer and stress free. They’re at most saving 10s of minutes on 7hour trip, it’s not worth the cost.

Speed limiter seems justified for people who are repeatedly endangering others.

I’ve never met a person taking high risk actions who thinks they are unqualified to do so. But they always think some other people are.

> I’ve got enough sense to keep it slow and safe in populated areas, yet occasionally open it up elsewhere when conditions are right.

Is this a reference to your driving, or your shooting?

Speeding kills much more people than guns. It also kills much more innocent outsiders (a lot of gun death are suicides or gang infightings).

It also introduces atmosphere of terror on public roads making walking or cycling dangerous. It's a way bigger problem than guns.

What do you mean by "when conditions are right"?

We haven't really figured out how to balance personal freedom with public safety when it comes to cars

I agree with you that guns are a an insane problem. However, that shouldn't discourage us from solving other unrelated problems when the solutions present themselves.

<< And yet, guns and ammo freely available and unrestricted outside of automatic weapons and the like? Yeah. Can’t wait to move off-grid someday. (Yes, obviously American)

Have you actually tried to purchase guns or ammo lately? There are genuinely few states, where freely available and unrestricted can be used without an asterisk attached.

Yes, lets just reorganize and rebuilt the entire city infrastructure to fix bad behavior by a few people. I don't want to actually oppose your suggestions because I think they are all good, but I also think that if a person repeatedly breaks a law then that is precisely the circumstances under which their freedom can be decreased as long as due process is respected.

American's still believe in freedom, in my opinion, its just that the entrenched powers make it increasingly impossible to imagine a world that actually nourishes human freedom and, lacking that, we just sort of flail around in frustration. The single insight which Americans must digest in order to move forward is that both governments and corporations and, indeed, any powerful entity whatsoever, can and often do interfere with human freedom and flourishing and all of them need to be continuously attended to and restrained by law and by the vigilance of the people. The second most important thing is the understanding that negative freedoms mean nothing without the resources to transform them into positive freedoms and if we fail to provide those resources then enormous amounts of human potential will be wasted. The second is a harder pill to swallow given the U.S. mythology, but I would be satisfied with the former for now.

You should look into why cities use smooth asphalt over concert which would be significantly less maintenance.

Cars driving around create a lot of noise. Driving on a rough surface like concert, let alone a bumpy surface like brick or cobblestone, creates a ton of additional noise. Another hint is that gravel driveways are cheap, but they also make it very very easy to hear when someone is pulling up to your house.

Anyone living next to these roads _might_ have some cars go a bit slower, but at the cost of not being able to sleep at night.

Then there is the fact that America loves big cars with big off roading wheels. I think the assumption here is that most speeders would be discouraged by the uncomfortable ride, however I think reality is that the people in that hummer going 90mph on a city street just won't care about a rougher ride.

If you also want to encourage biking, don't replace your asphalt with cobblestone. Maybe more speed bumbs and traffic slowing curves.

Bricks and cobblestones don’t handle high traffic well, require too much maintenance i.e. too expensive. Cobblestones are only good for areas with heavily restricted or banned vehicle traffic. For roads and higher traffic streets, asphalt is more practical.

Agree with the rest of your comment. I also think the main reason for high traffic deaths in America is road design.

"Cities can replace smooth asphalt with rough brick and cobblestone"

There are some cobblestone streets in Prague and cars driving through them, even slowly, generate a lot of unnecessary noise.

Count me out, I don't want to suffer from extra noise just because it would slow some people down. I lived in one such street for years and even with sporadic traffic, I had to open my windows at night. I hated that.

> with a possible exception for emergency vehicles

Ambulance and fire truck driver here. There's no good reason for emergency vehicles to ever go much faster than the speed limit, and we would experience life-changing amounts of personal liability if our driving got someone hurt.

While it's sometimes important to get a patient to the hospital as quickly as possible, that's less frequent than you might think, and it's always more important to get them there in one piece.

In addition our vehicles are heavy and they don't stop quickly, so physics is another good reason for us not to speed.

Police cars might be another story but my personal opinion is that speeding police cars probably don't create a net benefit for public safety either.

> There are cars that can go way over 100 mph, and they almost all speed controlled by software. High performance cars are often speed limited by software to about 150 mph. How is this legal?

Good question. My guess is as follows:

Per the NHTSA [1] alcohol, excess speed, and not wearing restraints are the top three causes of vehicle-related deaths in the US in roughly equal measure (although alcohol edges out the other two). The German autobahn infamously doesn't have a blanket speed limit and is about as safe as other European highway systems. To me this means that a case can be made for high speeds on public roads in the interest of expediency (though, for cultural reasons, I would not personally make it for the US). I can't, on the other hand, imagine endorsing road sodas or not wearing seat belts. In other words speed is only contextually dangerous while driving drunk and not using safety equipment are inherently bad which is why I'd imagine the latter two have been legislated.

Anecdotally I'd be much happier if more attention was spent on enforcement against bad driving behavior like tailgating, weaving, failing to signal, driving drunk, and running traffic signals than speeding. Nearly every brush with death I've had on public roads has been due to these, not somebody doing 95 in the fast lane.

[1] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

The primary reason is political: people don't like the idea of the government living inside our cars 24x7, telling us how fast we're allowed to go. Even though most of us don't speed. Other examples of this phenomenon include:

* A government mandated alcohol, cigarette, and BMI limit to prevent major health issues.

* Government surveillance of our emails, messages, phone calls, bank accounts and internet activity.

* Abolishing cash so all our transactions are electronically monitored to prevent fraud, money laundering, crime, and tax evasion.

* Limits on free speech.

There are many examples of ways in which authoritarian policies could, in theory, make society safer. Some of us are more comfortable with authoritarianism than others.

I'm much more concerned about someone going 40mph in a 25 zone than someone going 110 in a 75.

How will my road legal car know when it’s on a track or a closed road? Some how putting a way to disable it defeats the purpose. If its GPS controlled, people will be spoofing GPS to remove the limit, just need a raspberry pie and some other components. You’ll have unintended consequences.

California tried to do this, the bill got watered down in committee [1]. It's probably true that purely GPS-based speed-limiting is not good enough. Imagine being on a 75mph highway with a 25mph service road right next to it and the GPS not knowing the difference.

Still, interesting idea that could have legs when the technology got better.

[1]: https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5099205/california-tech...

I personally would be perfectly fine with a default software limiter that can be disabled when you get to the track (or a German autobahn). If you get in an accident on a public road with the car in track mode… they get to throw the book at you

> People love their fast cars, especially the rich and powerful

Too much correlation, not enough causation here.

Only "rich people" can afford pricey cars, while there are with much certainty "non rich people" that enjoy fast cars.

And there are a ton of affordable cars that can go 200kph+, or that can be riced into being able to do so.

Limiting the speed of chronic speeders doesn't seem like it maximizes tax revenue, though.

You accept speed as a huge factor in the severity of an accident but cannot understand the war against speeding?

> Speed is just one of many factors, and perhaps the least significant, in the frequency and probability of traffic accidents. Speed is absolutely a factor in the severity of an accident, but not the probability of one after accounting for all other variables.

That's because you are afflicted with Car Brain and are only thinking about speeding affecting other cars and not speeding affecting acidents involving cars and pedestrians or cyclists. Municipalities going to "war on speed" are protecting human lives of people outside of the car.

> What happens if you sell the car or let somebody else borrow it?

This will put an onerous burden on people who borrow cars.

If they intend to go more than 10 mph over the posted speed limit in the borrowed car they will need to make sure to only borrow cars from people who have not been convicted of speeding over 100 mph and forced to have an ISA installed.

...like if the GPS glitches a little and decides you're on a feeder or surface road when you're actually on a freeway

I recall someone analyzing records from LexisNexis or similar (maybe in a news article or lawsuit?) and uncovering all kinds of instances where they were incorrectly labeled as speeding due to crossing a lower-limit road. Unfortunately I can't find the link.

I recall hearing about Japan putting speed limiters in all cars and using GPS to determine the road and therefore speed limit to set the limiter dynamically in vehicles. (Perhaps some details are wrong or confabulated; regardless, it’s a neat idea.) I’m in favor of such a system in theory; I’d be concerned about privacy issues but there’s no reason for such a system to require driver identification anyway.

I guess it would work as a breath alcohol ignition interlock device when reselling.

I.e. you just remove it.

The idea of limiting reckless driving makes sense in theory, but once you start handing over control to software (and whoever manages it), the edge cases get really messy. GPS errors, ownership changes, rentals

Also: Maybe your family has two or three cars, but only one of the people in your family needs this "enforcement". Which car do they nerf?

Will it be widely implemented? This is only for repeat offenders, which the article says would affect less than 2% drivers.

Also, glitch does not look like a big problem, since for now the system will only verbally warn, just once.

The full relevant book was: "A guide for highway traffic regulation in an emergency". https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556021306899&se...

The Maintain Top Safe Speed thing was envisioned for transiting across fallout-contaminated areas in the weeks and months afterwards. It prescribes there would be cops stationed at the ends of such routes, limiting the flow of cars entering so that those within the stretch would not be congested and could go fast.

The scale of vehicular traffic these days make such a scenario seem quaint. The highways and interstates would be littered with cars.

This distinction has been made with engine capacity (number of CCs) for scooters or motorcycles in many places including in the US.

I think what you're most experiencing is a result of cars over 2 wheeled vehicles. Cities would be much better if the average American commuted around it with 2 wheeled vehicles, mass transit, or the occasional taxi for trips when traveling with larger items.

If you have not traveled around Asia, I recommend it. You start to see a lot of the sickness in American culture. The biggest is a culture that revolves around cars.

In Europe this exists with the l6e an l7e class vehicles - which lead to a number of interesting microcar designs, often for 2 people with a top speed of about 90km/h and ranges around 150-200km. Great commuter vehicles.

> Faster, smoother, quieter

One of the things you see where I live is they pave roads with lower speed limits with rougher surfaces. You can drive 60km/h on a 30km/h road, but it'll be very uncomfortable.

People will drive as fast as comfortable or as they feel is safe. Making roads less comfortable at high speed is not hard. Making roads feel dangerous at high speeds while still being safe is not hard.

You can't just put up a speed limit sign and expect it to work. You have to adapt the design of the road to the speed limit.

We have “neighborhood electric vehicles” in my state, basically overgrown golf carts. I want one so badly!

My hybrid SUV halves its mileage over 40-45 mph which is enough incentive for me not to be a maniac. I treat the average mpg as a game, trying to maximize it for my driving pattern.

Sucks when I have long stretches on the highway though.

Such a vehicle wouldn't be able to travel on a freeway at all [1], which means the market for them is very limited. Even in cities, people will want to hop on a freeway to cut across town more quickly.

[1] Most states have rules around operating a minimum speed with the flow of traffic, so cars inhibiting the flow or otherwise driving significantly slower than the cars around them are considered to be a safety hazard.

Some states are more objective by posting both minimum and maximum speed limits, though I personally find that freeways with speed minimums tend to actually have more people driving slow enough to cause disruptions.

The challenge, I guess, would be infrastructure and regulations

Why restrict it there? If you up it to 65 or 70, far more freeways become accessible. Maybe not in crazy ass 85 mph speed limit Texas, but that ain't my problem (luckily).

yea there are some wild hypotheticals being thrown around in the comments with one of my favorites being "what if you're drinking and you have to speed to escape a wildfire but have a breathalyzer in your car?". Jeeze I guess we really should just do nothing instead.

A lot of things are more dangerous than going over speed limits, and it will not be possible to prevent everything with technical gadgets.

I do not believe the US or VA constitutions guarantee a right to exceed speed limits. No idea what freedom they’re talking about!

They should go further than license removal. Owning a car that can drive on public roads should be illegal for habitual, feloniously dangerous speeders. Selling or renting a car to someone who is not allowed to own a car any longer should also be punishable.

It says in the article that people who lose their drivers license on account of speeding usually keep on driving anyway. I also feel like this is already the case in a lot of countries yet speeding still exists so I don't know if I agree that this is this simple solution no one is thinking of.

The problem is, at least in Virginia, every single speed limit is set low, and cops randomly pull over cars that are just traveling the same speed as the cars around them, all above the speed limit.

So license removal is not really fair. Not that this is any better, but if you at least get to keep driving legally, its generally slightly less worse.

Yeah. That solves the problem. Repeat 3 times? Lifetime ban.

Full self driving can’t come soon enough.