I don't agree that "speeding" is really an issue in and of itself. It all depends on the conditions around you. If you're on a 45 MPH limit road but it's pouring rain reducing visibility with 5 o'clock traffic, you'll most likely be going quite a bit below that limit. If you're on the same road, 45 MPH limit, at 2 AM, with zero other cars on the road, it should be understood that there's no harm going, reasonably, above that limit. What is "reasonable" or not is up for debate.
Some states even have laws that slower traffic must stay right, regardless of what your speedometer says. What's important is that you aren't impeding the flow of traffic, if traffic is moving 10 MPH over the limit but you refuse to go above it, no problem move right.
It's funny this article says "Avoid expensive traffic tickets, pay less for car insurance" when the car insurance is mandatory and they have cameras watching your car constantly. Seems dystopian to me.
DC reported 558 drug overdose fatalities in the past 12 months, but only 35 traffic fatalities in 2022 (from all sources, not necessarily speeding involved, but speeding is apparently a factor in 29% of traffic fatalities, 29% of 35 is 10.15, so we can say DC had about 10 traffic fatalities related to speeding in 2022). I'm not saying "speeding" isn't an issue there, but..... maybe they should focus elsewhere?
It's also funny this article says
"There's already some support for that hypothesis. A recent national survey found that 60 percent of U.S. motorists thought that automated enforcement was "mostly about raising revenue," presumably even when they're sited on calm, well-designed roads that make it clear in other ways that safety is a top priority."
Well yes in fact I do think this is about raising revenue because this project is apparently going to raise $578 million over four years, where is that money coming from, I wonder??
Don't get me wrong, speeding is an issue, sure. But is it really THE issue they should be focusing on, or is this just a cash grab? And, is "speeding" truly THE issue, or is it unsafe driving? There is a difference.
> If you're on the same road, 45 MPH limit, at 2 AM, with zero other cars on the road
If that happens, you're not driving in DC. There are only a handful of roads with speed limits that high and they are major arterial roads that have ample traffic even at 2AM.
At 2AM, you also have decreased visibility and it's even more important to follow the speed limit because it's harder to see pedestrians and cyclists.
>I blame that directly on US right wing politicians
Gonna be honest there are other people/places to blame. I'm not saying your target is or isn't a contributor to the issue, but they really aren't the biggest factor.
I disagree with the premise of locking someone out of something they physically own. You HAVE the seat heater in your car, the wiring works, you just aren't allowed to turn it on. I don't see this as the same as a basic vs premium version of a piece of software. The person owning the car owns the heater, the car, the wiring, they have to pay the miniscule extra cost of carrying that hardware around in their car. If Tesla offered to remove it at no cost if the car owner didn't want to pay the fee, I'd have no issue.
Where do you draw the line?
Next they'll be making you pay a fee to use low gears, or a power steering fee, a radio listening license, a Bluetooth permit, a reverse allowance, power window season pass, air condition authorization.
You HAVE the code for the premium software. It exists. The code all works. You downloaded it when you downloaded the basic package. You pay the minuscule extra cost of downloading and installing the extra code you don't use.
That argument doesn't hold up. Nobody should claim they are entitled to the premium features if they only have the basic license/software.
I agree that I don't want death by a thousand subscription fees, but this isn't exactly the same situation here. BMW's offerings is. Frankly, if BMW offered it with only the one-time charge, I'd consider it similar.
>You pay the minuscule extra cost of downloading and installing the extra code you don't use.
This really is where I have the issue. If I have to pay for my ISP to allow me to access the internet and use my bandwidth to download it, my power bill to allow my PC to install it, use up my storage space to host the software, then I should be able to do whatever I want to/with it and you shouldn't hinder me from doing so.
If I have to pay a fee for premium, and then additional components are downloaded and installed, fair game.
I wonder if there's any law that covers such a scenario, aside from EULA allowing the software dev to do what they want as long as the user agrees.
It would be nice if they specified where the people they conducted this experiment on came from.
Is it 1 in 5 "healthy" people from the US? 1 in 5 "healthy" people worldwide? 1 in 5 "healthy" people from the Americas? And what does "American" mean in the context of the study?
It may seem petty, but I genuinely can't tell. By title I would think worldwide.
Some states even have laws that slower traffic must stay right, regardless of what your speedometer says. What's important is that you aren't impeding the flow of traffic, if traffic is moving 10 MPH over the limit but you refuse to go above it, no problem move right.
It's funny this article says "Avoid expensive traffic tickets, pay less for car insurance" when the car insurance is mandatory and they have cameras watching your car constantly. Seems dystopian to me.
DC reported 558 drug overdose fatalities in the past 12 months, but only 35 traffic fatalities in 2022 (from all sources, not necessarily speeding involved, but speeding is apparently a factor in 29% of traffic fatalities, 29% of 35 is 10.15, so we can say DC had about 10 traffic fatalities related to speeding in 2022). I'm not saying "speeding" isn't an issue there, but..... maybe they should focus elsewhere?
It's also funny this article says
"There's already some support for that hypothesis. A recent national survey found that 60 percent of U.S. motorists thought that automated enforcement was "mostly about raising revenue," presumably even when they're sited on calm, well-designed roads that make it clear in other ways that safety is a top priority."
Well yes in fact I do think this is about raising revenue because this project is apparently going to raise $578 million over four years, where is that money coming from, I wonder??
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/traffic-data https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding https://wtop.com/dc/2023/03/dc-mayors-comeback-budget-adds-t...
Don't get me wrong, speeding is an issue, sure. But is it really THE issue they should be focusing on, or is this just a cash grab? And, is "speeding" truly THE issue, or is it unsafe driving? There is a difference.