Ford trying to patent system that reports speeding vehicles to police
local12.com
"Ain't no snitches riding with us
Ol mo the mouth n***as could holler the front" - Lil' Wayne
"Ain't no snitches riding with us
Ol mo the mouth n***as could holler the front" - Lil' Wayne
Ooh yes good patent it so other manufacturers won't do it. It's a win-win since I already wouldn't want a ford
Edit: what it uses cameras to look at other vehicles??? That is much worse
Yep, it snitches on other cars!
Let's be real, close to a majority of Americans have no issue with their iPhone being used as part of a mesh tracking network, even if it helps abusers with airtags.
All they have to do is sell this to people as benefiting them, and they will gobble it up. Hell, chances are, insurance companies will start offering reduced rates if you drive one (and then they buy the data from Ford and increase rates with it).
The massive difference between AirTags and this is that AirTags (and the whole Find My network, it’s not only AirTags after all) actually provide a useful service to each participant, namely locating their things if they get lost somewhere. This does effectively nothing for you and will only ever fuck over other people (you could argue rightfully so, but still) and provides no value to anyone other than the police.
One wonders whether instance companies will incentivize these vehicles with lower rates.
For whatever the insurance companies deem a low rate driver, sure. But you can be sure that many drivers will be paying more once their insurance company sees how much time they stare at a TikTok videos what “driving”.
Actually. I do wish that phones would fucking tattle on people who can’t be bothered to watch where they’re going while operating 2 ton Hausfraupanzers.
Instead of paying 2000 dollars a month for your shitty lifted ford ranger you pay 1500 a month for your shitty lifted ford ranger, but the car will... SHUT THE FUCK UP, WHERE DO I SIGN?
Ooh that's gonna get your car keyed.
You have a strange way of writing molotov cocktailled.
I was gonna say, they are getting keyed with bullets
The key that opens anything.
Patents don't necessarily stop other OEMs from using it. It just means they'll have to pay Ford a fee to license it, themselves.
Welcome to UPS trucks.
And Amazon, and FedEx, and UPS, and DHL...
I a totally meant FedEx. But I thought they were the only ones with police contracts?
They all have telematics in their trucks, and I know they all use the data in the case of accidents to prove fault. Amazon specifically monitors speed and will fire drivers if they do it too much. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they started sharing that info.
Oh yea, on the same page, it's just that FedEx specifically have been proven to hold contracts with law enforcement, while the others have not.
Sooo how long before we find a way to jailbreak the thing and essentially have an on-board "give that car a ticket" button to report false speed data on any driver we happen to be pissed off at?
...yeah I'd 100% abuse the fuck out of that.
Not just a law enforcement thing, either.
Ford will absolutely, 100%, start selling this data to insurance companies, who will absolutely use it to increase rates.
us insurance sounds insane, you are forced do deal with corporations in a scammy as fuck way
Oh, it only sounds that way because our US insurance system is fucking insane and forces us to deal with them in a scammy way!
How does it work elsewhere? We require doctors get malpractice insurance, and there's growing support for making the police get liability insurance too.
I live in Estonia.
For one, car insurance depends on your basic demographics (car registration location, owner's years of driving/insuring experience), the car's power rating and make/model - and finally, accident history. For any type of insurance that covers your own vehicle as well, it also takes into account the age and value of the vehicle (for the mandatory liability insurance, that's irrelevant).
For medical insurance, your prior medical history doesn't matter, there are no premiums. Your options are (simplified, there are some others too):
Work and have social tax paid for you by the employer (they don't get to weasel out of this with a regular work contract)
Be an entrepreneur and pay yourself at least the minimum monthly salary with social tax, the rest you can take out as dividends or invest into growing the company
Be a student, including university
Be underage (this also gives you dental! I do wish everyone got dental)
Be registered as unemployed and at least act like you're trying to find a job
Have some sort of permanent disability that's severely impacting your ability to work
Have a child under 3 years old
If nothing else applies to you, you can pay a certain sum which was either monthly or quarterly, to have the same health insurance (this is mostly for those entrepreneurs who don't want to pay themselves even a minimum salary because they're already loaded and would rather avoid paying payroll taxes on themselves and only pay income tax if/when taking out dividends). I suppose you could also do it if your income is entirely illegal and therefore untaxed.
If you hit any of these, you pay €5 per doctor's appointment, with some exceptions. Private care is more expensive. If you don't in any way qualify for the national medical insurance, you'll have to pay for your procedures and stuff, but the prices are reasonable usually.
As for liability insurance for medical malpractice and the police - I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe that victims get compensated by either the hospital, or the government in the case of the police. In any case, it's very rare for anything like this to happen luckily.
I do believe life insurance that pays out if you die prematurely or get a major injury or disease, will still depend on your medical history - or at least whether you smoke and drink alcohol.
You do realize insurance companies were recently proven to be purchasing data secretly created from our own vehicles so they could raise rates, right? Not sure it "works" here in the US...
How does it work elsewhere?
Are they trying to sell fewer vehicles?
"But if we market it as a subscription service, then surely customers will want it" - Some clueless executive
What they should do is give the car owners a cut if the ticket fees. They would have people patrolling the streets to catch speeders. There also be a big uptick in vandalism of Fords. I would love to watch this experiment with some popcorn.
Dude! Yes! We definitely need more companies treating 1984 like an instruction manual. /s
Pay to lose
it'll be something the cops subscribe to, and car owners will have no say.
Ford could put all their R&D money into developing low-cost EVs, but they'd prefer to give the cops a handout.
Maybe a natural consequence but better than that would be low profile vehicles
Thus making the EVs very expensive.... just sayin'
Edit: I don't know why you are downvoting. These are economic realities as they exist today. More R&D => greater costs => higher price. Fully Automated Luxury Communism is, unfortunately, not a likely reality in our lifetimes.
Then how do any low-cost vehicles ever get developed?
By minimizing costs, including R&D. Further, the lower the price the lower the profit and usually the lower the margin. Companies are not incentivitized to make less money.
This is pretty basic stuff...
If only it were physically possible to change that. Alas, the fifth law of thermodynamics says profit above all.
It is possible to change it, of course, but every attempt thus far has ended in authoritarian political systems with even less opportunity for you to be housed, fed and well cared for, much less able to get things like affordable EVs.
I'm pretty convinced, sadly, that this is mainly because humans basically suck.
While I wish people would stop fucking speeding (you really aren't getting there that much faster) and tailgaiting like fucking Talladega nights, I still think this is bullshit and fuck Ford for doing this.
The need:
Don't drive over people, kids, pets or other items such as personal property or buildings.
The current status:
People don't do those things because mostly they are good enough not to run you over. Bad people on the other hand have no internal limits to prevent tragedy.
The fix:
You can't go faster than the speed limit. Bad people can still drive you over or hit your car or house.
You see how this works? The problem wasn't even addressed. But additionally there's the problem of "I'm at point A and would like to get to point B but not faster than the speed limit so the cop doesn't shoot me 19 times in the back of the head."
The fix: you can't go faster than the speed limit. This allows you to get to point B. However the cop can still shoot you 19 times in the back of the head even when you didn't do anything wrong.
Are they trying to make cars undesirable?
It's an absolute win win.
If they patent it, no one else can use the same system in the same way. So it's contained to Ford.
If they don't end up using it. It's simply a safeguard that no one else can either.
If they do end up using it, people will shy away from Ford, making the roads safer for everyone.
As I said. Win win. This is fantastic news.
What if legislation says the feature needs to be added. And then everyone's forced to buy a license from Ford to make it happen?
No one would be forced to buy a license from Ford. IF they decide it has to be on every car, and it's that specific system, they would have to buy it out from Ford.
But legislation like that doesn't happen over night. It's planned several years in advance so everyone has time to implement it.
But if that's what you're worries about. I suggest you vote for whomever is opposed to it. And if no one is opposed. I suggest you protest.
Just theirs.
But you know, not a bad thought.
Heh. Guess theyre tired of making money
Right? Why the hell would I buy a vehicle that's going to report me to the police?
They’re probably waiting for this tech to be required by law and make a lot of cash on the patent.
Because it will not report you. It will report others it sees on the road - except Fords.
They already have to implement a system to shut off the car if "drunk driving is detected" by law
I haven't heard of that. How does it work? It shuts the car off if you swerve a lot?
Do you have a source I could read more about this?
The law doesn't say how it should work at all. This source seems the least biased I've seen on it
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/cars/editorials/why-are-people-worried-about-automotive-kill-switch-mandates-44503639
Ah classic boot licking just like ol' henry ford
What do you mean by tha-
Oh. Well, shit.
How to spot a car company no longer innovating
Patent Trolling.
Fascist nazi fuck company. Class traitor ICE vehicles seem on point though.
That face when you allow your factories in Europe to become war machines, but not the ones in your own home.
Allegiances and all that.
I'm never buying a newer car.
enshittification might just be how capitalism destroys itself.
The thing with new cars is that they turn into old cars.
2016+ is a no buy for me. I don't look at new cars to begin with and anything 2016 or newer gets the axe as well. They are permanent Tracking.
I feel like you atleast have some wiggle room with electric cars, I cant imagine that it would be too hard to just rip out and replace most of the bs parts. Mostly cause you dont have a massive engine block to deal with, just wires.
With electric cars the Firmware does a lot more work than you think. You can't just rip fuses like the old days. For a lot of the newer vehicles changes mean tracking or coding changes vs vehicle doesn't start.
Oh no im talking ripping literally everything out and starting more or less from scratch, battery and body only.
So you are writing your own firmware and updates too?
No but it also shouldnt be complex enough to need it, all the computer needs to do is control the motors and the shifter nothing else. I dont need cruise control, I dont need lane assist, I dont even need powered windows ya know what fuck the doors altogether. Everything else IE lights, air, radio can be controlled through a rather simple tertiary power system.
So how are you going to monitor and control the temperature of the battery pack so it doesn't blow up in your face? How do you control charging rates? How do you pre-heat the pack when when it's cold outside?
And those are the just the first things I can think of in less than 15 seconds.
I live in a desert so I dont really need to pre heat shit, seriously I can just not drive it for the two weeks its under fifty. There are prebuilt modules that can control charging rate, they aint fancy but theyre becoming common in my area due to hobbyists. As for temperature id probably just slap a couple electric thermometers to it and call it a day. Worst case for the temp I rip up the back seat and jam an abomination of a heat sink into it.
Frankly speaking id probably just start copying old 1980s and 1970s electric car design.
Anyways I have clearly not thought it through massively, just got the basics down. And most of my opinions come from the place of loathing new cars, they all suck. I drive a 91 cherokee, I know how to work on mechanical shit not electric. But I have messed with enough old electronics to know there is always a workaround, even if it is ass backwards and is a massive fire hazard.
I look forward to reading your obituary some day........
You seem to assume I dont take cautious. I take plenty, ive got a couple work tables with burns and melted metal that say so. As well as a welding mask with a melted lense. I aint got no scares from it yet.
True, I'll never a own a car with technology that can send my data to anyone else.
This is likely for new models of Interceptors so that cops don't have to hold those heavy radar guns to generate revenue. Instead they can automatically ticket speeders while driving to the donut shop or their next victim's house.
Cops hate this one simple trick!
No, they love it because they have to do less to cause more misery.
The all new Ford Narc 2024, with optional stitches.
You won't buy a Ford because it'll rat you out to the cops
I won't buy a Ford because they're dog shit vehicles
We are not the same
With how rarely Toyota's break down, I hesitate to consider any other car company. Ford is near bottom of the barrel.
Hondas are fine
My Toyota is old enough to vote, and the only issue it has ever given me was a seized brake caliper. I’m convinced that it’s going to outlive the heat death of the universe.
Funny enough my girlfriend and I just got Toyota's, so we should have reliable vehicles for the next 30 years
Lol, fuck yeah!
Still make sure to do basic maintenance on them
I rented a Ford focus once and it really was a dog shit vehicle. Every other vehicle could easily interface with my iPod but this piece of shit would need to scan the iPod for 5-10 minutes (making the head unit completely unusable in the meantime) at which point it would start playing some random song from the iPod that it bizarrely determined was first. That was the most obvious shitty design flaw, but literally every thing about the car was piss poor. If I hadn't been against Ford already because they knowingly killed people with those defective Firestones, I would've completely turned against them from that one rental experience. Fuck Ford.
Yup! Wanna change your battery?
"FUCK YOU, GO TO AND PAY A DEALER CAUSE WE BURIED THAT SHIT INSIDE THE FUCKING ENGINE COMPARTMENT!" -Ford
I can't believe no one has sued them for this anti-consumer bullshit. I don't know anything about cars, but even I have been able to change the battery in every vehicle I have ever owned.
Maybe they are patenting this just so that no one else can make it! Because they are generous kind hearted people, right? Right?..... Omg :(
Nope it just takes one jurisdiction to mandate a reporting system is used and then they have a captive market.
If they program in an exception to not report other Fords it could become a competitive advantage.
And that's why I love old cars.
Great, investors have a target to short sell in the car industry based on Fords bad product development
This idea seems like what someone would come up with if they’re devoid from the reality of driving and have only been chauffeured around lol
Yeah, nobody would willingly buy this. I certainly wouldn't. Never mind the obvious perpetual privacy violation baked right in to a hairbrained scheme like this, but could you ever fully trust it to work correctly and not ever randomly (or not-so-randomly) send people up for prosecution under false pretenses? I guarantee you the speed tattle system will be a black box, some dipshit legislator would pass a law making fucking with it or reverse engineering it a crime "because safety," and then any time the state wants to harass anyone they can just ping somebody's Ford to spit out a false speeding ticket (maybe even one that's egregious enough to count as a felony like 130 in a 25, or whatever). And how are you going to be equipped to argue against it? It's going to be your word against the computer and Ford's army of lawyers and experts plus the police, in a system that's already heavily stacked against the defendant.
This will probably only see any actual use being built into police cars and maybe commercial fleets, but not civilian vehicles.
If I have to buy a "new" car someday, I'm cutting off every antenna I see.
Unable to contact servers; boot loop, car won't start; manufacturer sues you for breaking licensing agreement with unapproved modifications
That's why we need right to repair
And a corporate death penalty, if I had my druthers.
I'm against the death penalty, so corporate disbandanment
Classic cars for me then
my classic car is a 2005😎
Unfortunately just like your cell phone we don't really need external antennas anymore. In a lot of cases there's not even a wire inside you can easily cut, just traces deep on the board
What I've been reading about on that subject is that cars often have a Telematics Control Unit or TCU that can actually be disabled if you can find it. It's a box that plugs in to the wiring harness. They also have antennas that could be connected by a wire that you could locate, giving us another option to disable them by just disconnecting the antenna wire. That way the TCU could still talk to the main computers but not be able to send out its data.
If it doesn't have a wire you could always put in a little faraday cage.
They could make a system that doesn't allow the vehicle to speed but I guess allowing it and then snitching is better
That sounds like a really bad idea. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to go over the limit situationally.
Especially when other drivers could potentially put you in harms way that you otherwise wouldn't be able to evade.
Also what if you need to rush to the hospital and don't have time for an ambulance? Not great but better than someone dying because they didn't get attention in time.
Even ambulances aren't supposed to speed. They get their time savings with light switching devices and having traffic get out of the way. 99 percent of survivable medical crises have an hour to reach modern medicine as long as proper first aid has been applied.
It's also almost universally better to slow down than speed up to avoid an accident. Braking changes your speed far faster than speeding up. It also gives you better traction, (literally it loads the front turning wheels with extra weight), and makes a hit more survivable.
We all want to feel like we're in a Hollywood movie, but we just aren't.
I really think you are missing the point here. You say overspeeding may save you, which i think is a very theorical and not frequent occurence but ok, for the sake of argument let's allow 20kmh above the maximum speed limit, in my country that would be 150kmh, enough to get out of dangerous situation, still way bellow what modern car can do. And you really dont want to go above this kind of speed in urban environments if you're not a trained professional. Speed limit exist for a reason which extends beyond "when you agree with them" raming in another car and transforming a 1 people emergency into a multiple people one is not a risk we should consider acceptable.
I agree that there's rarely a good reason to speed. However, most speed limits are fairly arbitrary. Some are too fast, some are too slow.
And the individual driver is not the arbiter of that. Just because someone feels the speed limits are wrong doesn't justify speeding
The arbitrary speed limits are often because many city planners still use the 80th percentile rule. Basically, they do a traffic study, then set the limit at what 80% of people are comfortable driving at. So that means 20% will naturally feel like they can go faster. And as they reach the 99th percentile, they’ll feel like they can go much faster.
The issue with this 80th percentile thing is that it has very little grounding in traffic safety or reality; Many roads are needlessly wide and give drivers an unrealistic sense of safety. They’ll feel like they can go 40 or 50MPH, when it’s really a street that is cutting through a neighborhood and is frequented by children playing, bike riders, etc…
While i dont necessarily agree with you, it is not my point. I am not saying we should limit the speed according to local speed limit, just that there is no reason ever for an individual car to go above 150kmh (or whatever the highest allowed speed in a country+15% is)
Speed limits are set according to a number of factor from noise, local crash history, density of pedestrians, threshold of the safety equipments (such as rails) , willingness of the governing body to review it, etc While some are not good, I would definetly argue that not all the reasons can be assessed from the driver perspective.
You should probably read articles before commenting. The cars aren't reporting themselves.
Patent it so nobody is allowed to use it?
15 years max for patents like this. Filling is intent to use and/or charge/profit.
I know, but 15 years is a long-ass time.
Tbh, if all the ticketing was done automatically, then there would be less of a reason for cops, especially traffic cops. This decreasing their numbers. This could be a silver lining.
or, hear me out... we could just have cars that don't snitch on us and cops that work under strict scrutiny (or no cops at all if we took care of ourselves as a society)
This was my thought as well. Just because they patent it, doesn’t mean they’ll use it. And it could keep other manufacturers from implementing similar systems.
From a product standpoint, I just don’t understand the reasoning here. Nobody wants this. It’s not a selling point. There is no way to make money off of this without the government getting involved. Just why?
Yeah exactly. Who is going to buy the car that tips off the cops?
Yet another reason I will never own a ford vehicle.
Other than the fact that they only make expensive monster trucks now.
Want to do any work on your f150?
Step 1: Remove the entire cab
This stopped being true in 2012. They are shit now for entirely different reasons (cost, parts, recall maint, shop incompetence).
That said it never changed for Rangers.
If my car is going to be a snitch, I want a share of that fat ticket money. ;)
Pay me or GTFO.
Infinite money glitch?
Maybe if we didn't make city streets as wide as highways, people wouldn't drive so fast. I feel like it's obvious that people will drive faster between painted lines than if those lines were walls. Even lining a street with trees lowers speeds. An indirect side effect would be a drop in ticket revenue, but surely the police department would prefer safety over money.
Having been in places with narrow streets and walls right there... Nope. Doesn't stop them.
I’m starting my attack run
What's especially hilarious is that my Ford Escape reads speed limit signs and then adjusts the cruise control to the new limit +5mph. They let you adjust that setting up to +/- 10mph, iirc.
Well yeah, they have to allow you wiggle room to knowingly break the law. How else are they going to maintain the partnership with law enforcement?
Noted: driving 3 mph under the speed limit in front of all fords from now on.
Go for 10mph under. Gotta really be safe.
GM will be patenting LED windshields showing the middle-finger and blurring the license plate every time a Ford passes by.
Not gonna lie, I've encountered enough F150 drivers to make this option tempting.
Edit: I'm wrong, now I diverted rtfa. it's a camera system to detect other cars. My bad.
I don't understand your comment. GM own ford, right? And the data they are trying to share comes from the car itself, not other cars around it.
No, GM owns Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac.
Ford is Lincoln, mercury and Mazda
I'm curious if this would actually hold up in court as evidence that a person was speeding.
On its own to convict? Probably no. If the technology is hypothetically successful introduced and it pings to police, all they'd need to do is follow a route to the self-snitching vehicle and hit it with some of their own radar or lidar, then pull over the driver.
The vehicle doesn't self-snitch. It snitches on other vehicles around it. It apparently uses cameras to do it. It'd only be able to tell cops where the vehicle was when the picture was taken, not where it is.
That's even less functional, and is to my thinking not even close to enough on its own to hand out tickets, as some people think this will be used for.
This was several years ago, so the law in my state may have changed, but I do remember reading that dashcam footage submitted by a civilian can't be used by police to issue a ticket after the fact. It can be used as evidence for or against someone if the police do get involved, though.
To put it another way, the officer has to witness the traffic offense themselves in order to issue a ticket. But dashcam footage could be used as evidence to prove someone either was or was not speeding after the ticket was already issued.
You have the constitution to thank! Same reason red light cameras were deemed unconstitutional in most places.
You can tell most of the comment section never reads past the headline
I admittedly only knew it wasn't self-snitching because I read another comment from someone that had actually read the article.
I did check to confirm before I actually commented myself, though.
Like 90% of people speed all the time. This system would produce so much data it would be useless.
Either that or it would be so lucrative we could fund universal healthcare
Except we all know it would fund cool new guns and tanks for your local municipality.
They would totally use it for infrastructure and continue to have single family housing. I.e. not learn a damn thing.
but what if I only went above limit for 1 second by mistake? vigilante snitching is not the police to decide to give me ticket
And then selling a subscription to turn it off
Ha, you would think so, but from article it seems it'd snitch only on other vehicles. Now, a subscription for reporting a certain 'enemy' vehicle could be way to go. Edit: sneetch
"Sir, your Ford sent half an hour long video of this truck going 85 mph on 65 mph road. I would think you understand why you also got a ticket?"
Surely you understand that companies start with the seemingly innocuous execution that establishes the base infrastructure to gain adoption and then, when adoption moves beyond a certain percentage, they flip the switch to the thing they actually wanted. Also, go read about "enshitification".
Uber was more available and cheaper than taxis > uber kills taxis > now uber is more expensive and invasive than taxis were.
Surprised it took this long. Well, guess that means it's time to faraday cage the 5g radios in the vehicles or find a way to create a super small jammer that can only broadcast in your car. Some sort of license plate blocker that only shows at a certain angle too.
Fuck that shit.
You can get the license plate thingies on eBay
License plate blockers are illegal in most states now because of the implementation of privately owned license plate readers that track you and sell the data back to police.
Interesting. The article suggests the car would photograph others speeding rather than reporting itself.
Personally, I don't mind speeders so much except when they're weaving between traffic recklessly. I do really hate tailgaters though. So a rear-facing camera maybe?
How about neither
I hate speeders, i almost got shot off the road yesterday by a guy going at least 120kmh in an 80kmh zone. But trusting someone like let's say ford to take care of that... Oh nonono
I hear you. But I can't agree to what's basically spying on everyone just for that. You know it would escalate into more mundane things once it's there.
Exactly
I see Ford wants to produce only cop cars.
when are we gonna have biomedical devices that directly send their test results to health insurance companies? I feel like we are missing this for a perfect Dystopia
This is a weird one. I speed, and so does everyone else, but nobody has the right to speed, and I cant say it necessarily would be bad to have more speeding restrictions. Im sure it would be just as abused as any other part of the law and justice system but I dont find it inherently unappealing.
Why?
Our roads are designed to make us think we can go faster than we should and localities have an incentive to keep speed limits arbitrarily low to increase fines from speeders.
Which is it? If speed limits are arbitrarily low then you can go faster. The fact that most people speed and the roads aren't consistently littered with accidents seems to support that.
fwiw, the roads are constantly littered with accidents and the US has the highest pedestrian fatality rate out of all "western" nations
It's both because there is more than one kind of road.
America really likes stroads which give the impression that you can safely travel at speeds that are actually dangerous. We do that often in neighborhoods where we should be going 20-25 max but the design of the roads encourages us to drive faster. Since the speed limit is often actually at a safe speed, the issue of speeding is about the design of the road and not the speed limit.
Larger roads like highways, freeways, and expressways are designed for high-speed travel but often have speed limits that are low for the sake of revenue generation. If you've ever driven through a small town where the highway design doesn't change but the speed suddenly drops from 65 to 35 you know what I mean. In those cases the problem is with the arbitrarily low speed limit as some states have raised the cap up to 80 and have not seen a substantial increase in accident-related injuries and deaths.
Connector roads often suffer from one or the other problem listed above. They are either designed to make you feel like you can go 60 when you should be going 40 or are set at 30 when you could safely go 40. The road design needs to match the safe speed by making drivers feel unsafe when they exceed that speed and not unnecessarily penalize them by not putting the limit lower than that speed.
Both of those result in speeding but have different causes.
It's both. They make it so you want to speed so they can generate revenue. Wide lanes and low speed limits can yield a lot of tickets
I was driving on a road like that in Scranton with a 45 mph speed limit, doing 50. For about a quarter mile, without any change in the road, it drops to 35 mph. Right in front of a police station. So the cops don't even have to leave their station to start ticketing people.
Well, both.
If the road were clear around me, I could easily hold 100+ off the highway. I've got huge streets near me with long curves. No problem for my relatively new tires and well-maintained vehicle.
Once we add cars to the mix, I can no longer go that fast. Too many other cars, if I just weave around them, I can go fast again. Who wants all this power sitting behind a Sentra?
Yay! I'm free! Fast fast fast until more cars again. A little bob and weave... Crash.
This road is literally as wide as the highway but the speed limit is 45mph.
The road always has traffic, always construction, always debris from poorly maintained cars or accidents which means you can't go fast but the road itself was designed for the Daytona 500. The 'speed limit' is set for a pace that makes 18 wheelers look fast.
So, the obvious answer said by every Suburban with scrapes on the side and Altima with paper tags is "My car isn't going to fail or crash and in ideal conditions should have no problem redlining all the way down this thing so I should try that in five o'clock traffic."
Um they are
Old, terrible road speed design methods resulting in shit like my drive to work: a long, straight road that's wider than the nearby highway yet has a speed limit 15mph slower because....?
Usually the answer is "uncontrolled access" I.e. it has driveways and such, and not on and off ramps
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. Speeders are assholes that put everyone in danger.
Get fucked if you speed. I lost several family members because of pricks like you and I even wound up hospitalized from it. Eat shit and piss off. Asswipes like you fucks don't need a drivers license since you don't know how to drive.
Lord, Mr. Ford, I just wish that you could see what your simple horseless carriage has become.
Ford trying to patent a way to bankrupt themselves for when no one ever buys another ford ever again.
Don't worry, the federal government will bail them out.
gotta syphon that money out of government somehow.
Cue the “I wasn’t driving, that was someone else!” Defense.
Give 'em hell, Monkey Man...
Should be Dodge
We've had the technology for a long time. And speeding really is a contributing factor to motor vehicle accidents and fatalities. If we're going to have a society that requires being in cars then we need to be a society with severe rules for putting the rest of us in mortal danger.
Make it automatic then, why report a crime when you can limit the speed. Cut out the middle man, also defund the police.
It looks like this system is designed to snitch on the other cars around the snitch car, rather than the snitch car itself.
I'd rather that too.
::: spoiler WKRC - Cincinnati Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
:::
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
::: spoiler Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community. :::
Why not just have a speed cap on cars?
Edit : I see I got a few dislikes. I was actually genuinely curious. Thanks for the answers!
Because it’s dangerous. Sometimes you have to exceed the speed limit to avoid a collision.
And have it auto adjust based on the roads limit. We have gps and data for every road. Driving is a privilege not a right, nobody has the right to speed faster than the posted limit.
I'll stop speeding when the mfs around here stop building 6 lane roads with a 30mph speed limit.
Ill stop speading when I stop having freebird play randomly.
No speed cap yet, but all new cars sold in the EU must have a signal that alerts the driver if they're driving faster than the current speed limit.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/a61532276/mandatory-speed-limiters-europe-cars/
I hope they make it 80dB loud and sound like nails on a chalkboard.
How is this bad? Speeding is a huge problem ever since the Fast & Furious movies made young guys think it’s cool to drive 180km/h through cities.
Police. The problem is the police.
Fucking mouth breather
Do you think no one sped before fast and the furious a movie famously inspired by people driving like assholes on city streets?
No. But asshole drivers speeding, driving under the influence, running traffic stop lights/signs are still killing themselves and others at an impressive clip. And show no signs of slowing down - pun intended.
You would think that killing enough of those dumbasses would improve the breed like Darwin says it should. But nope.
Sure but the cause isn't a c list movie.
Douchebags have been speeding since before FAF
But it's bad because say traffic is going 20 over the speed limit. You go with it since that's safer than going the speed limit. Then you get a ticket for it?
That’s not speeding, which means recklessly driving like a madman - and 20 mph over is not a small amount when the limit is 55.
The „it’s not illegal if everybody does it“ defence also isn’t going to help you. Because it’s the slipperiest of slopes.
I go over the limit sometimes, too, and when I get caught I pay the fine like an adult, instead of making up childish excuses why it was actually fine to do so.
And anyway, the fines are adjusted by how much you went over, if you just slightly go over, it’s cheaper.
So in summary, you’re an idiot and I hope you get caught doing something really bad soon,
The problem is that a lot pf times the limit is a joke. It needs to be set what is actually safe, not arbitrarily low to create speed traps or whatever. There's really no reason an interstate that's more or less straight for 100 miles should be limited to 55/60. People are not going to stick to that because they can safely go a lot faster (depending on traffic obviously) but then you have others who will rigidly adhere to the speed limit while ignoring proper lane usage. The combination of the two types of driver create dangerous bottlenecks where you have congestion and people weaving in and out to get past slower drivers.
Fixing the speed limit would at least eliminate the issues caused by people using as a justification to drive slower than the rest of traffic in whatever lane they want. The next step would be to enforce properly keeping right if you are not passing which is what is responsible for a lot of the dangerous congestion people encounter on the road.
As for what Ford is doing either way it's stupid but if they're going to do that why not just make the system limit the top speed to whatever the current speed limit is instead? You know, actually fix the "problem".
The safest speed to drive is the speed of traffic. It's not that "everyone's doing it" is an excuse, it's literally the safest and therefore most ethical choice.
Don’t tell me that, tell that to the officer giving you a ticket lmao
Most officers don't ticket for speed of traffic, the uniform vehicle code (federal advisory on traffic laws) literally advises them not to for obvious reason. Most cops will focus on cars exceeding both the speed of traffic and the speed limit. If you drive you whole life going the speed of traffic you are very unlikely to be ticketed ever.
You do realize the police will jump at the opportunity to give you a ticket for going 1 mph above the limit for 5 seconds while overtaking ?
Perhaps in rare cases. But most polices can't be arsed to make a traffic stop for all but the most egregious instances. Otherwise you probably would have a few hundred tickets yourself.
In this case they wouldn't have to make a traffic stop. In my country they would still have to fill some paperwork which might dissuade them (except if they need to keep their numbers up) but I'm sure there are some places where they could legally automate that shit
Sure they can install traffic cameras and there are places that do to monitor speeds and stop signs/lights. Those are often rigged to add as much income as is 'legally possible'. And they can be defeated if you so desire. Plus, in places like where I live, a traffic ticket must written "On the operator the vehicle" not to the vehicle itself. So cameras where I live.
Plus, are you content to let a stupid drive continue to drive and endanger everyone else he passes on the road?