We’ve occasionally warned about the up-and-coming idea of mandating that automobiles be fitted out with mechanical controls that would keep them from being driven faster than the authorities think is good for us, and sure enough, here’s an endorsement of the notion from Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress (via Hemingway, NRO “Corner”; see also Ezra Klein, American Prospect).
20 Comments
Many cars already come with speed limiters. I owned two GM vehicles which had tires that weren’t speed-rated for more than 110mph, and they were governed at 107mph. BMW’s and Mercedes (and possibly Audi’s) are governed at 155.
As a profligate speeder, I disagree with the idea that we should be forced to buy cars with 75 or 80mph governors. I understood why GM limited my two vehicles; driving faster than your tire is rated can lead to tread separation. So I replaced the tires and had the governors removed. If I ever buy a Benz or a BMW, I’ll likely have the 155mph limiter removed.
I do however believe they should be fitted on rental moving trucks. I know some truck rental companies do that already, and I’m sure it’s saved at least a few lives.
How about speed governors getting you cheaper insurance rates? I think this is a great idea.
It seems obvious to me that speed limiters set at 75 or 80 mph will apply just to the little folk. The authorities — police, fire, EMS, military, and politicians — will make sure they can drive as fast as they please — for reasons of “official business” only, of course.
I have a question, Justinian…
What have you done with the REAL Justinian Lane?!? You’ve made two reasonable posts in a row (that I’ve seen, anyway), and, as best I could tell, you formerly made about that many a year.
This is meant as a compliment, but it really does make me wonder if you’ve changed, or if we’ve just had a couple of topics that you are more reasonable on.
Two years ago, NJ Gov. John Corzine’s NJ State Police-driven SUV was doing in excess of 95 mph on the NJ Turnpike (the max posted limited is 65 mph), ran 2 cars off the road and crashed because Corzine was trying to get to a photo-op in Newark.
During the 1980s, my mother drove a Dodge (400? I think) that had a cruise control that would not allow the user to set a speed above 55mph. Very irritating.
Deoxy, thanks for the compliment. I’m probably much more libertarian than you suspect. I’m a pro-gun, pro individual-rights guy. My lust for individual rights actually explains a lot of my positions that you disagree with.
Ron: If I voluntarily put a governor on my car, or buy the governor option from the dealer, I should absolutely get cheaper insurance rates.
oops, botched the tags, there – sorry.
Well Deoxy, you’re always welcome to head over to TortDeform and debate whether my stance on things like damage caps benefits individuals. But we probably shouldn’t do it here, lest Walter or Ted think I’m thread hijacking.
But rest assured that I am strongly opposed to government intervention with my car.
Parris: I’ve driven a couple of GM vehicles that wouldn’t allow the cruise control to be set at over 130. Not irritating, but one has to wonder how GM came up with that specific speed as the “safe” setting for cruise control.
“Ron: If I voluntarily put a governor on my car, or buy the governor option from the dealer, I should absolutely get cheaper insurance rates. ”
Only if you can establish that the dollar cost of automobile accidents is directly correlated to top speed of your automobile. While high speed accidents are truly horrific, that may not be where the majority of costs are. One can do a lot of damage at 10 or 20 MPH.
I once drove a rental truck with a governor at 72. Highly irritating when on an interstate with a speed limit of 75, but probably a valid safety concern because I wasn’t used to driving something that big and heavily laden.
I seriously question the judgment of anyone who drives 130 mph anywhere other than on a racetrack.
Well right Charlie. But I think it is pretty easy to prove that people who drive less than let’s say 75 mph are less inclined to get in accident than those how drive faster than 75 mph. I don’t have study on hand to prove this. I also don’t have a study on hand that says that heroin is bad for your health but I believe both with equal force.
I’ve had three accidents in my life. One, perhaps, was due to my driver error. (The other two were inflicted upon me by people running red lights.)
My speed at the time of the accidents was never over 25 mph. Yet I’m happy to drive 80+mph on highways when conditions permit. My top speed, off a race track, was about 135mph on a German autobahn. I do not recommend that speed for general driving on highways. Some highways, though permit one to drive very fast and quite safely. A governor would be a real nuisance under those conditions. I mean, Kansas and Wyoming are already incredibly boring states to cross. Adding an hour or two to the transit is simply cruelty.
Put governors on taxis. Put them on in-city trucks and buses. Maybe even on cars that work best in cities. But they don’t really belong on cars that do long-distance drives.
“I do however believe they should be fitted on rental moving trucks. I know some truck rental companies do that already, and I’m sure it’s saved at least a few live”
Justinian, not so very libertarian of you. You want unrestricted speed for yourself, but think others should be subject to legal restraint. Wanting more government for everyone else sounds like you just want to be the dictator yourself.
How do they come up with this? Actuaries. I just got off the phone with a risk/probablity guy. Strangely, there is a remarkable science to this stuff. But I still think the idea of speed-govorning is just one step closer to nany-ism. We already have speed govorning. It’s called “go-pedal, stop-pedal.” Couldn’t we also consider turn-govorning? Some kind of apparatus which prevents turns of certain degrees at prescribed speeds?
You want unrestricted speed for yourself, but think others should be subject to legal restraint. Wanting more government for everyone else sounds like you just want to be the dictator yourself.
I am not sure that I agree with you here. If the trucks are rental trucks, it would seem that the governor was either ordered on those particular trucks, or placed on them by the rental company. I have no issues with that at all. A company making a decision for their product is different from the government telling them what to do.
This same thing was discussed years ago concerning the sport bikes (motorcycles.) There was an unwritten “competition” as to which manufacturor had the fastest bike. After realizing the folly of the engineering costs vs the return, plus the inevitable lawsuits, the manufacturors got together and decided to place a speed limit on their bikes.
The market – not the government – is often the best way to decide these types of issues.
Nevins, its widely believed that many rental truck companies use cheaper, “passenger car/light truck” tires on their vehicles, rather than tires designed for heavier loads and the associated heating/wear of the tire that occurs in the expected use of those vehicles. Limiting speed mechanically/electronically to minimize the risks this choice poses not only to the operator, but to others sharing the road seems a reasonable consideration by the rental agencies who are simultaneously attempting to cut costs and limit liability. Not one I necessarily agree with, but I can understand the obvious cost/benefit analysis they are engaged in.
As to the rest, yes, all major car manufacturers attempt to use mechanical or electronic means to limit the vehicle’s maximum operational speed to within the design limits of the various components. No doubt, were they to engineer a vehicle cabaple of propelling itself to 175 mph, but supplied tires rated only to R or S (106 and 112 mph, respectively, I believe), they would fall afowl of various regulatory requirements found in FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) as well as increasing the risks that a jury, hearing of a horrific accident, would choose to ignore the fact that the driver was operating the vehicle at an illegal rate of speed when assessing liability, or, joint and several liability and a driver without significant assets could make the jury’s apportionment of fault largely immaterial.
If you want to read up on tire standards, I suggest starting with FMVSS 109 and 139. There was significant media attention during debate and passage of the “Tread” act as well, which used Ford/Bridgestone/Firestone tire failure/vehicle rollover allegations as its poster-child.
Certainly, there is significant interest from all sides, car and truck manufacturers, tire manufacturers, NHTSA, vehicle operators, etc. If big rigs and concrete trucks interest you, this link may be useful for another example:
http://www.truckline.com/NR/rdonlyres/0CB11B29-D85D-4E2E-B43D-7375E302CDFC/0/101606ATAPetition.pdf
As always, the opinions expressed here are mine alone, and should not be imputed to my employer.
I can imagine this turning into a liability issue for commercial vehicle rental services. If someone rents a car, drives it too fast, and ends up in an accident, I’d wager there’s a lawyer out there willing to sue the rental company for negligence since it could have used speed governors to prevent the accident.