After deadly Nevada crash, federal investigators want cars to warn drivers if they’re speeding

Read on...

After deadly Nevada crash,

Some excerpts:

DETROIT (AP) — Federal accident investigators want automakers to install systems on all new vehicles that warn drivers when they go over the speed limit, and it is asking regulators to figure out how states can electronically limit speeds on vehicles driven by repeat traffic offenders.

*****

NHTSA will be asked to require as standard equipment on all new vehicles “intelligent speed assistance systems” that use cameras and mapping to determine the speed limit and at minimum, warn drivers when they go over it. The board also discussed pushing states to install active systems that make it harder for a repeat offender to speed, or limit speeding altogether.

*****

And this is because of this:

The National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendations to combat excessive speeding came after a hearing Tuesday on a January 2022 crash in North Las Vegas, Nevada. In that crash, the driver of a Dodge Challenger with a long record of speeding ran a red light at 103 miles per hour (166 kilometers per hour) and slammed into a minivan, killing himself and eight others.

The board, which can only make recommendations and has no regulatory authority, determined that the Challenger driver’s excessive speed and failure to obey a stop sign and red light caused the crash. His impairment from cocaine and PCP contributed. But it also found that the state of Nevada failed to seriously punish the driver after he was charged with five speeding violations in the 17 months before the crash.

*****

I tried to truncate for space.  

Discuss

When someone enters an intersection against a stop sign and red light doing a solid dollar while high on PCP and coke, I don't think the root of the issue was that the driver didn't notice they were speeding. Perhaps at most a secondary factor that can occur when one is off one's ass on PCP and coke.

I had a Chevy with an early digital gauge cluster. The speedometer would go up to 85 and then just start blinking without going any higher, regardless of your actual speed. It was annoying, but ineffective. 

So they basically want a road-going system like this?...

What if you are doing 172 in Nevada in your Porsche, smoking illegal drugs and taking a selfie video?  Won't the warnings annoy you?  
 

The root issue here probably isn't the lack of an alarm.  

I think most modern cars already have this - I know my 2014 Audi does. The wife had it set at 80 and the speed limits on the interstates around here are 75, so it was going off repeatedly if I passed someone. It was annoying as hell!

I secretly set it to 120.....

Great more stupidity in the government. What a shocker. Extremely sorry for the people who lost there lives to this piece of trash human being. Darwin prevailed in getting him off the planet. Just to bad the government even if it acted wouldn't have stopped this as the person just didn't care about himself or anyone else.

Surely other folks here remember cars equipped with buzzers that would alert you when going over a set speed (e.g. 55). Skylarks were so equipped for a while, at least. 

Oh I was wondering why we didn't just legislate stupidity away. It should work really well. 

brandonsmash said:

Surely other folks here remember cars equipped with buzzers that would alert you when going over a set speed (e.g. 55). Skylarks were so equipped for a while, at least. 

Lots of German cars have a user-settable speed warning.

I'm not looking forward to the day that people in new cars are trying to pass semis at 0.5 mph difference in speed because the car won't let them go any faster.

My cars actually have this neat indicator that tells me how fast I'm going at all times. It's pretty helpful.

Here in Aus, a lot of (most?) new cars are coming with speed sign recognition and alarm.  Cameras detect the speed limit (sometime correctly ;) ), and the car gets angry if you go over the limit.  
In most instances, this can be turned off by the user.  

That said, pretty poor root cause analysis if it is believed that an alarm would have prevented the incident in question. 

I wouldn't get too over excited at the NTSB making a suggestion. They do that, get excited when/if NHTSA publishes a NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking) in the federal register.

There's a lot of open NTSB recommendations to NHTSA. https://www.nhtsa.gov/ntsb-open-recommendations-nhtsa

For instance, they want breathalyzers in every car... https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-public/sr-details/H-22-022

Ignoring that this piece of E36 M3 was on drugs and did not care in the least bit about any laws or other people- 

He didn't care about speeding tickets either. Does anyone really think a warning chime would have stopped him? 
 

This is why it makes no sense to craft laws as a reaction to extreme situations, just to say that you "did something." 

Seems like a very small part of the article and not really relevant to the situation. It is like they had an interview for something and mentioned this as well because it is an important one to then. 
 

Fwiw, my Waze, Google maps, and I think the onboard navigation on the Kia, all already do this. 

barefootcyborg5000 said:

Oh I was wondering why we didn't just legislate stupidity away. It should work really well. 

Yeah, we should have a war on drugs!  Oh, wait a minute....

1984 called

Even if this was to become a thing it would only work on people who lack the intelligence to defeat the system.

camopaint0707 said:

1984 called

we passed that point long ago. Remember we mandated that all new cars have rear occupant detector things to stop 26 deaths a year. 26. Considering 6 people per hour die in the US every year, that's just over 4 minutes. We had manufacturers spend millions to develop and install a device to solve 4 minutes of deaths. 

We are not smart. The more we give up in the name of "safety" the less freedom we have and the more controlled we are. I gotta go with Public Enemy on this one.

MiniDave said:

I think most modern cars already have this - I know my 2014 Audi does. The wife had it set at 80 and the speed limits on the interstates around here are 75, so it was going off repeatedly if I passed someone. It was annoying as hell!

I secretly set it to 120.....

SWMBO has the same thing, and it isn't accurate.  Every morning when we're talking on the phone while she's driving to work I can hear "THE SPEED LIMIT IS 35" while driving through a section that's marked 45mph.  I don't kow how she hasn't turned that off, I offered to help but she doesn't mind.

bobzilla said:

camopaint0707 said:

1984 called

We passed that point long ago.

I gotta go with Public Enemy on this one.

Not to mention Ben Franklin.

From my experience designing public facilities, if you put a person / committee / agency specifically in charge of safety, they will focus exclusively on safety.

Not on usability.  Not on beauty or comfort.  Not on cost-effectiveness or efficiency.  Definitely not on statistical probability.  Not even on any rational form of common sense.

So this study / recommendation does not surprise me one bit.  Unfortunately, in today's culture, hysteria and hyperfocus too often win the day.

We're not building safer cars, we're just building better idiots.

NickD said:

We're building safer cars, which is unfortunately allowing better idiots to breed free from natural selection.

FTFY.

IMHO, this is more the IIHS pushing this than anyone else.  Especially the insurance company of the moron who has to pay out millions to the victims.  The insurance companies have been pushing a lot more safety items on people than anyone else in recent years- to save they paying out money.

If you compare the IIHS vs the NTSHA ratings, NTSHA only looks at all of the crashes, IIHS adds in all of the prevention tech to their ratings.  Which this would be.

Which is kind of ironic for this- if one of their customers ignore the warnings, they are more on the hook to pay out.  

This is also performative: IIHS, NHTSA, auto manufacturers, policy groups or committees, etc. can point to this as being a THING that they've done to "curb the dangerous spread of (whatever)." The THING doesn't actually have to have meaningful benefit, it just has to appear like it might do something. This appeases the "if it saves just one life!" crowd.