https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2026/INOA-DP26010-19159.pdf
Did the author even read the petition?
I mean, if they need training data for ragdoll simulation, there's already Carmageddon series. They can connect FSD to a PC and get enough training data in no time.
Not less gruesome*, but way less dangerous for schoolchildren.
*: They should download the patch to undo the zombie conversion, but Grok can do it in a pinch.
If speed limits are impractical they have to be fixed.
In Texas, for example, they do a traffic study and set the limit to the 85th percentile speed.
https://www.txdot.gov/safety/driving-laws/speed-limits/speed...
Our highways also train you that speed limit are complete bullshit. On an 8 lane, divided highway, with nothing but empty field or protective barriers on either side, 60 mph is comically low. That's how you end up with absurdities like it often being unavoidably illegal to drive on 680 in the Bay Area: either you're speeding, or you're obstructing traffic, both of which carry a fine.
IMO, the correct answer is to raise the speed limit of surface streets that already double as psuedo-highways (looking at you, San Jose), strictly enforce speed limits on surface streets, and then completely eliminate speed limits on the freeways.
So, if a road feels "safe" at 60mph to people, and you put the speed limit as 20 the average traffic might be 40mph. If you put the speed limit as 40mph, it might go up to 55mph. If you put the speed limit as 60mph, it might go up to 65 mph.
But that natural tapering is what lets you find a stable value for a specific percentile threshold.
Were a car to refuse to exceed the speed limit, it would be dangerously slow almost everywhere in the united states, arguably reducing safety substantially.
Because the other cars are speeding too.
> Notably, any reduction in danger that flows from breaking the speed limit is only for the car and other cars breaking the speed limit, in no case it is for pedestrians, cyclists or other non-vehicle participants in traffic.
Correct.
Speed limits in a vacuum are largely about revenue generation. There's ample evidence backing numerous practices that actually slow traffic, things like using traffic circles instead of intersections, reducing the width of lanes to promote slower travel, speed humps, separating traffic that's going a distance (roads) at speed, from slower traffic preparing to enter residences/businesses (streets). Lots of stuff.
Limits though? I mean they probably don't do nothing but they aren't nearly as effective unless you pair them with a regular police presence. And even then, mixed effects. I'm pretty sure the entirety of the Chicago Loop is capped at 55 mph, but if you actually do 55 on that thing, you're gonna die.
As to the topic of the thread: truthfully, IMO, parents should be barred from ferrying their kids to school. Not only is it just a "commute but worse" in terms of ecological impact (the car goes, drops the person, returns home, then returns later, picks up, and returns home. Literally 2x the normal traffic impact) but also it's ridiculously inefficient for similar reasons. School traffic everywhere I have ever lived has been a goddamned nightmare. I would rather be stuck on the highway jam ten times than be trying to navigate around a school full of stressed, harried parents driving big stupid SUVs, who themselves are surrounded by children, who themselves are entering and exiting vehicles at random.
School busses are the safest vehicles on American roads, and starting kids on them early gets them comfortable with the idea of mass transit. Dictionary definition of a win/win.
I actually look forward to self driving taxis/etc doing the speed limit for this reason. It's going to be difficult to speed if there are always vehicles doing the speed limits in various lanes (where passing lanes don't exist, at least)
Maybe software will never get good enough, but that’s not a bet I would make.
That said I think a fair number of people, myself included, are fine to pay and do more to keep our hand-driven cars, and I'll happily drive next to (properly insured) robots.
These mechanisms among others are much more effective at traffic calming rather than putting up more damn signs to clutter things up, and hiring more cops. But of course fixing streets costs money, and police issuing fines generates it, so it's not shocking that most municipalities go with option B.
Not fixing streets is 'free' and reduces the perceived safe speed. Letting the streets crumble is a win win.
This doesn't entirely work, eventually the street gets unusable and it's often much more expensive to rebuild it than it you had done timely maintenance.
Maybe the posted speed limit doesn't include the tip.
No idea if they still do that.
One source of pressure to keep speeds high is that if municipalities can classify a street as a collector or arterial, they can get federal aid for projects related to the road. As such cities will often want to bring a local road up to collector or arterial status so that they can get higher federal funding for it. (Collectors and arterials usually are larger streets with higher speed limits, though the biggest gray zone is between collectors and local roads and often the biggest difference is indeed the speed limit.) Urban planning discourse about "stroads" in the US is largely a story of local roads that have eventually been classified as collectors or arterials so retain the residential or commercial density of a slower road but are expected to have the speeds and vehicle volumes of faster roads.
(FWIW I first saw this on city-data in the early 2000s and vaguely heard my parents' generation say similar things to this comment, but when I actually started listening and attending local meetings I realize that it's mostly an urban legend that gets repeated to each other.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
"...the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) was enacted in the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that withheld Federal Highway funds from States that refused to comply with provisions of the law, including a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour (89 km/h) for passenger vehicles, an increase Nixon approved in signing the final legislation."
I would say the majority do the same, for probably the same reason.
Stop using dangerous hw features.
That's the kind of person I expect who speeds in a school zone.
How much is that likely to bias the dataset?
(Also, the second case is something a car manufacturer should probably be resolving more by not hogging the overtaking lane than defaulting to going 20mph over the limit for extended periods because everybody else does)
What consequences does Elon Musk face when his autonomous cars do the same?
I hope the Nordics prevail and the Europeans don’t follow his bullshit.
Tesla is also in the process of a deal with German regulators to get it approved by changing the name to TAD (Tesla Assisted Driving). And when Germany approves, the rest of Europe will likely quickly follow.
I used to think so, but no, not in a school zone or cities at least. They might be safe for the car, but not for pedestrians and cyclists. Those are road users, and speed limits take them into account as well. That's also why you don't see 25mph limits on highways: pedestrians are not allowed there, and the lanes are designed to support high speeds, so the risk for all allowed users is lower and limits can be higher.
Couple that with the fact that everyone wants to ride the fine-limit (and not the road limit) and a 50mph road becomes effectively a 55-60mph road, because you know, shaving 1m off a 1:30h commute is such an achievement.
Some people here complain about 30mph limits, but in EU many city/school zones are becoming 18mph or even 12mph. Two reasons:
1. An impact at 12-18mph might break your leg, but you otherwise have a very good 100% recovery chance. At 30mph, major injuries become more common, and you risk crippling another human being for life. And again, 12-18mph for many people really means +5-10% or more depending on the fine, so 15-25mph in reality.
2. (not accounting reaction time in the following) At 12-18mph, an SUV can break in 13-30ft on wet pavement, which means you might bump someone and they might break a bone or two, but will otherwise probably be okay. At 30mph that's 115-150ft, which means with the little space you might have, there's no way you're going to stop in time to not run them over and cause them major damage.
Mainly that if we want traffic to be slow and walking children to be safe, this can be accomplished by better planning and placement of schools and better design of our streets.
Slapping a blinking 30mph sign on a wide, straight, six-lane highway is kind of a brute force solution that relies on enforcement and compliance, and still leaves pedestrians vulnerable to a lot of car traffic. Anyone walking through or crossing the street during non-school-zone hours is also not afforded that extra level of safety.
Placing the schools on quieter streets with features designed to naturally slow traffic flow and promote safety for pedestrians and bicycles could accomplish most of the same safety goals and work passively 24/7.
As could designing neighborhoods so that more kids can walk and bike to school, reducing car traffic further during busy pickup/dropoff times.
These school zones are instead designed to generate revenue and not do anything for safety. If you are going to have an enforceable school zone you should have a flashing light indicating when its active.
Doesn't that imply that there should just be flashing lights adding to existing school zones, not that we eliminate them?
> These school zones are instead designed to generate revenue and not do anything for safety. If you are going to have an enforceable school zone you should have a flashing light indicating when its active.
How does it generate revenue? I don't generally spend money when I'm slowing down for a school zone.