The idea of self-driving cars is appealing to many of my friends as they dislike driving. It’s not relaxing for them. It’s not exciting. It’s a necessity that is often expensive and sometimes dangerous. But even for those people, the idea of a mandatory speed limiter isn’t necessarily appealing.
Today’s Morning Dump is all about the interaction between government, industry, and consumers. In Europe (and Northern Ireland), speed limiters are mandated on all new cars as of this weekend. If you can’t drive 88.5 and live on the continent this is your new reality, though there are a couple of ways around it.
Stateside, the existence of restrictions on foreign materials in batteries is leading many companies to scramble to figure out where to source the chemicals they need. So you say you want a hydrogen revolution? No, you didn’t? That’s just an OEM thing? Well, California is also a little less sure it wants to change the world in that specific way.
And, finally, GM is going to fork up about $145.8 million after excessive emissions were found in a bunch of its vehicles that weren’t quite at the emissions levels that were promised.
Mandatory Speed Limiters Are Happening
Speed limits are real, but they’re not generally hard limits. It’s a feature of the social contract that there are laws we expect to be strictly enforced and ones that no one expects to be rigorously applied. I drink beers with my buddies in the parking lot after our ultimate games and, technically, that’s not legal but no cop would deign to bother us for doing it.
Put another way: You can drive one mile over the speed limit and expect to get away with it, but you rob one bank, and all of a sudden there’s a manhunt.
In most places, it’s generally understood that there’s a roughly 4-6 mph grace period above the speed limit where the effort required by the law enforcement officer to pull you over and write you up isn’t worth it to them. There are exceptions, of course. Speed limits in school zones tend to be hard limits, and for good reason. Of course, if a cop wants to pull you over for some reason, they can pop you for doing 55 in a 54 as a pretext for a deeper search.
If you wish to go faster than the speed limit it’s up to you whether or not you want to risk a ticket, points on your license, or possible jail time if you reach felony speeds.
Lately, automakers have been applying new technologies to limit exceeding the speed limit. Most new cars will let you know what the car thinks the speed limit is and warn you, one way or another if you are exceeding that limit. Some cars beep. Most cars flash some sort of symbol on the dash. Some new cars can even be set to stop the driver from going any faster, but that’s a choice the driver makes.
If you’re in Europe, it’s now a choice that the government makes. As of July 7th, all new cars sold on the continent or in Northern Ireland have to have a mandatory speed limiter installed. The system is generally known as Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) and it’s probably going to show up on a lot of vehicles in the United Kingdom as well because the country basically shares a car market with the rest of its neighbors.
Here’s Highway News with some reaction from Britain’s Royal Automobile Club:
Steve Gooding of the RAC Foundation explained that although the ISA tech can be stopped temporarily by drivers, it resets itself every time the car is turned off.
He said: “For now, UK drivers will have the option of disabling ISA where it is installed but I think many motorists will tire of switching it off and they will just learn to live with it.”
He added: “Arguably ISA will mark the beginning of the end of a world in which people choose their cars on the basis of its top speed and the time it takes to accelerate from 0 to 60mph.
“It’s a sign of things to come,” he continued. “Increasingly, the car is going to decide what you can and can’t do.”
The system is defeatable, though that comes with its own potential issues as The Guardian implies:
With the precise readings of computers replacing wobbly speedometer needles, however, and a new generation of speed cameras upping the ante on the enforcement side, it may be ever harder to disown responsibility. Lawyers say those who switch off the speed limiter at the start of their journey may have a difficult time if they end up in court.
There’s an obvious solution to this, which is that you can just buy an older car. No one is talking about banning old cars and, therefore, old cars are going to become inherently more valuable to people who want more control.
New cars are mostly not designed for enthusiasts, they’re designed for regular people. Reducing speeds is better for the environment, it’s better for pedestrians/cyclists, and it’s generally safer. It’s hard to argue that other people should be able to go 120 mph in their GMC Acadia because I don’t trust other people. I think many people want this and some people should have it.
But I don’t want it. Increasingly, carmakers are trying to take the role of driving away from the driver. This view sees the driver as an unfortunate necessity, a stand-in for a computer until a computer can do the job. That view is winning. It’s winning in California and it’s winning in other places.
Whether this would work in America is a matter of debate as we’ve already experimented with a national speed limit and it didn’t last long. The great paradox of the American road is that the speed limits in denser urban and suburban areas are clearly too high, while speed limits on America’s higher-quality interstates are arguably too low.
Should Car Companies Become Battery Companies?
The battery requirements in the Inflation Reduction Act are impacting most domestic manufacturers, but even without it OEMs were already trying to figure out the best way to control their own supply chain.
With a few exceptions, the powertrains in most new cars are made by that automaker. On the other hand, no automaker makes its own gas. Because batteries are such a huge part of the value/cost of a vehicle it behooves automakers to not necessarily outsource all of it.
The analysts at S&P Global Mobility have a breakdown of the different approaches to this problem, though the bottom line is that outsourcing is increasingly going out of vogue.
S&P Global Mobility forecasts that sourcing under value chain integration, where the cell, module and pack are manufactured in-house, will increase from 16.7% in 2022 to nearly 21% in 2030. During the same period, outsourcing is expected to fall from about 21% to less than 11%.
OEMs are increasingly looking to balance the risk against the investment required to have a highly vertically integrated battery supply chain. That is the reason behind a lot of partnerships between OEMs and suppliers. This trend will gain more momentum through the end of this decade. Sourcing through partnerships is expected to increase from 7% in 2022 to 26% in 2030.
If you were curious, BYD is the automaker that uses the least outsourcing (it uses zero) because BYD is a battery company that makes cars and not the other way around like everyone else.
Will California Kill The Hydrogen Truck?
I still am highly skeptical of passenger hydrogen vehicles. Unlike electricity, hydrogen is a much less flexible fuel and requires either onsite production or more infrastructure than I think we’re ok with building everywhere. But big trucks? Big trucks follow set routes and already carry huge amounts of fuel.
I don’t hate the idea of a hydrogen semi, whether it’s an internal combustion engine turned into something that can burn hydrogen or a hydrogen fuel cell where the hydrogen creates energy for electric motors. A hydrogen semi would emit less than a typical diesel-powered truck and might otherwise be more efficient.
The less there is the key piece as Automotive News reports:
While emitting only trace amounts of carbon dioxide from the lubricants used in the engine, they still produce smog-forming nitrogen oxides and other pollutants.
California’s Advanced Clean Fleets regulation governs the operation of trucks. It defines zero-emission vehicles as those that produce zero exhaust emissions of any of six commonly found air pollutants identified by the EPA, precursor substances that react chemically to form pollutants or greenhouse gases under any possible operational modes or conditions.
“Under this definition, a hydrogen combustion engine does not meet the definition of a ZEV,” said Kate Lamb, a California Air Resources Board spokesperson.
Given that many other states follow California regulations this is a bit of a roadblock for the non-fuel cell trucks.
GM Agrees To Pay Big Emissions Bill
Here’s another fun thing about the social contract and the legal system in the United States. You can essentially say ‘I don’t think I did anything wrong, or at least I don’t want to admit to it, but going through the legal motions is such a chore I’ll just agree to pay a fine or whatever and get this off my plate.’
That’s what’s happened with General Motors, which agreed to pay $145.8 million and give up the 50 million metric tons of carbon allowances it claimed for vehicles built between 2012 and 2018. Basically, automakers estimate what their emissions are and tell the government.
If the government doesn’t think that’s the case it can investigate and, in this case, it did and found that GM was a little too favorable to itself.
From Reuters via the Detroit Free Press:
In a statement, GM said it “has at all times complied with and adhered to all applicable laws and regulations in the certification and in-use testing of the vehicles in-question” but added it believes “this is the best course of action to swiftly resolve outstanding issues with the federal government regarding this matter.”
GM also paid $128.2 million last year for a similar issue. Both of these were the first time the company had to pay one of these fines in the 40 years or so since the rules were put in place. Is that, too, an enforcement issue?
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
It’s a bad girl summer, with Charli XCX, Chappell Roan, and Sabrina Carpenter dominating. Here’s another one to get stuck in your head, this time featuring actor Barry Keoghan as the bad boy in Sabrina Carpenter’s “Please, Please, Please.” I’m less interested in the lovebirds (though they have some great chemistry here) and more interested in that 1978 Dodge Magnum XE. Holy hell, that’s some great car casting.
The Big Question
Speed limiters, should everyone else have them? Do you want them?
Skimmed through the comments, so maybe someone already pointed out, but… I think this ”speed limiter” is just a beep, when you cross the limit. And thats it. The beep is annoying, but you can switch it off. Until the next start. Unless you program it to stay off… the demand exists so the software will be made to handle the problem. If it does not already. Vag-com?
OR, your car will come with customizable ”drive assist system personalization” button on the dash, that you can use to choose your favorite setting for ALL of the driving aids (off). Newest Renaults already do. The rental Toyota Rav 4 I just drove had the setting hidden deep in the menu system, incredibly annoying. Although the meep is not very loud, so older folks probably don’t even hear it…
So, the Brussels technocrats are not limiting your speed, just reminding you of the limit when you cross it. IF the map data is correct… As far as I know.
Also, as far as I know, the EU data laws make it possible to limit the amount if data your car is sharing. Meaning that the insurance company paranoia is rather limited here, compared to some other jurisdictions. Maybe if you crash, the police will check the data, but that’s it. Unless you voluntarily use some stupid insurance discount app, but for some reason those have not taken off…
“In most places, it’s generally understood that there’s a roughly 4-6 mph grace period above the speed limit …”
Erm, I dunno about that. I speed pretty much everywhere I go, and I’ve passed by many an officer at 10 over, or even 15-20 on an Interstate, without so much as a light flash.
Personally I like our Pretend Speed Limits. You go as fast as you’re willing to dare over the Pretend (posted) Limit, and let it shake out as it does. On the Interstates around Chicago, it seems that everyone has come to an agreement that 85 is the Actual Speed Limit.
This seems like a situation where the majority of folks are gonna give up any possibility of enjoying driving because it’s the responsible thing to do, while the people that were speeding all along are gonna keep weaving through traffic in beater Nissans.
Matt, it’s not a speed limiter. ISA is a speed warning system. I can still go 120+mph on the Autobahn, no matter what the speed limit is. I just have to live with the beeping and the flashing warning light. Or disable the system. Anyway, it sucks big time.
This is going to create an increased submarket for older cars that don’t have any of these features.
Can we retrofit speed limiters to all Altimas? I’m definitely down for that
so THAT is why they’re gonna stop making it 😀
I’m all for ISA here in the States, as long as the technology also forcibly removes clueless drivers from the left lane if they’re not passing.
(How will anyone be able to pass if they’re all restricted to the same limit? Have politicians fully thought this through?)
All sarcasm aside, I don’t feel that speed limiters alone are going to be a magic pill for any country’s roadways, regardless of the stated goal.
(How will anyone be able to pass if they’re all restricted to the same limit? Have politicians fully thought this through?)
They won’t. If the right lane is doing the speed limit the left lane is completely off limits. Which means congestion starts with relatively light road capacity, especially in areas of high ingress/egress, more lane changes from passing contested traffic and roadway wear is concentrated on the right lane.
This’ll mean the end of the speeding ticket business in Europe.
Did you mean Ireland, or the Republic of Ireland, which is in the EU. Northern Ireland is part of the UK with England, Scotland and Wales.
I believe he was correct. All of Europe is doing this and Northern Ireland has a “modified Brexit” where the follow a lot of EU regs still to make island trade simpler.
The ability of a smart system to recognize a school zone was the first thing that came to mind that would have to be solved for since those are on active timers, and (at least in North Texas), the only indication that the zone is active is a blinking light that may or may not be working. With that said, I’m still for this because putting hard limiters in cars is probably the only way to stop people from being so aggressively reckless.
I was driving down to San Antonio last week and there’s a stretch of 130 that’s flat and straight for I don’t know how many miles, and the speed limit is 85. I was sticking pretty close to that and still had people just blowing past me like I was doing 60. These folks are driving the same way on an 85 as they are in a 65 and we know it.
I don’t like that modern cars are basically selling my driving data to the insurance companies, in fact, I don’t know like how much of our data is for sale (all of it essentially) at all. I’m willing to live with this if it brings vehicles back down to a reasonable side and curbs vehicular related deaths though.
sincerely if this stops scummy municipalities from doing that old trick of lowering the speed limit in a single stretch of a highway to fine everyone, I’m good with that feature
Some people think the answer the every problem is another law. Enough already. Of course you can think of a million cases right of the top of your head that speed limiters would fail at.
Our federal system should be a bulwark against this kind of nanny-state BS at the national level but it’s been subverted by a number of unelected, unaccountable agencies of which the NHTSA is one. My only hope that this doesn’t come here (won’t you think of the children?) is that recent Supreme Court decisions allow the populace and states/localities to sue agencies repeatedly to counter these kinds of regulations. Ideally the power of unelected bureaucrats to do this kind of thing is rolled back entirely at some point. End rant
Remember your rant when a chemical company dumps toxins in a park where your children play, then sues the EPA tying up the case in court while you pay out for pocket for cancer treatments. And hope that if it ever does comes to trial the unelected judge who will now decide the case is not vacationing with the chemical companies CEO.
That’s not to say I’m in favor of speed limiters, but this is being driven by insurance companies and tech companies that want to make money off the transition to self driving cars. Destroying the agencies does nothing but make the country less safe and easier for wealthy corporations to manipulate.
All about balance. Clearly there is a need for strong oversight such as the EPA but automatic, machine enabled law enforcement is a dangerous path. As Matt was alluding to, there has to be a reasonable expectation of rules being flexibly enforced. If everyone and everything is policed with 0% tolerance, well, we’ve all seen that movie.
This reply is typical of the histrionics from various media sources regarding Chevron (which 99.9% of the country had never heard of before it suddenly was super important). Unfortunately this was amplified in the dissents by certain justices who ought to know better.
To reply to the substance, no one is suggesting the federal government shouldn’t be involved in regulating emissions. I’m suggesting Congress pass actual laws to that effect, rather than have agencies interpret vague laws however they like. This is done by every administration no matter the party and it’s no way to govern. And when those laws are broken, I’d like the cases to be heard in a court of law, not some kangaroo tribunal in front of the same people responsible for enforcement.
Your car will record how often you turn off the limiter and that data will inevitably end up getting sold to your insurance company. We live in the worst timeline.
I never wanted to be the grumpy old guy that that complains that all the new tech sucks and the old stuff is better but I increasingly want nothing to do with any type of connected or software defined vehicle.
Total cost of insurance across all drivers isn’t going to go up because of this, insurers would just be able to better allocate the risk/premium to who is more or less risky when driving. (If anything this might reduce speeding and cause a decrease in total insurance claims and premiums).
So for every speeder complaining about their rate going up, there’s a responsible driver who follows the limit who should probably see a reduction in their rates.
Said another way: Insurance companies currently have limited options to identify habitual speeders, so everyone is getting charged a rate based on assumed median level of speeding and the safe non-speeders are effectively subsidizing the speeders and this new information will allow the drivers to be charged more accurately based on their specific risk level.
I guess the followup question to this is has anyone seen their rates meaningfully decrease because they opted in to one of the tracking devices used by major insurance companies to do this already?
Punishing bad driving I can see. Rewarding good driving requires benevolence on the part of the insurance company, which doesn’t seem likely.
It’s more compliance than benevolence. There are all kinds of laws dictating what insurers can and can’t charge and how much profit they can make. So if they up-charge the speeders and don’t discount the non speeders, they potentially trigger those rules and end up having to pay money back.
It’s like in 2020 when so many people were staying home and not driving, claims went down so much that most companies voluntarily issued rebates to customers to avoid triggering any issues for being too profitable.
I have a hard time believing they would just lower their prices for anybody at least to the extent that it matches their own savings. At a certain level of granularity you effectively defeat the point of insurance all together. Not saying that’s right or wrong, some people would never have an accident and pay nothing for insurance. Others would have to shoulder the entire financial burden of accidents they caused both medical and material. That would certainly be the most fair, but the concept was always based on the safest subsidizing the riskiest drivers.
I think you are taking “Insurance companies using more data to get more granular with the rates charged” and jumping 30 steps ahead to “Insurance
company has a crystal ball and know who will or won’t have an accident”.
Like the point of insurance isn’t safe drivers subsidizing dangerous drivers. It’s drivers who have an incident/claim being subsidized by those who do not. Most people most years are not going to have an accident, and those who do have accidents are going to come from both the “safe” and “dangerous” driver population. I’m just talking about adding one more criteria to the already very complex calculation they use to decide how much each person needs to contribute to participate in the pooling of risks.
But the insurance company would basically need to have a crystal ball or a time machine in order to get to a level of granularity you describe that gets to the point of defeating the point of insurance because whether you label someone “safe” or “unsafe”, there’s still a non-zero chance that any driver could have an accident any day.
You said it better than me, and before me. I should have kept reading.
The concept was to find a way to engage in shipping without risking an unacceptably large risk of bankruptcy by dividing the payoff of successful voyages through insurance that protected investors from the risk of a total loss. Not all loses are caused by negligent actions, chance plays a part.
If there is a decrease in insurance claims, the ONLY result is going to be higher bonuses to CEOs and higher payouts to shareholders of whichever groups owns your insurance provider. Capitalism 101.
At least in the US, there are a host of rules and regulations in place that limit exactly what you’re describing and put caps on how much money insurance companies can make.
It’s exactly why in 2020 when nobody was driving (or crashing) and insurance companies had fewer claims to pay, most auto insurance companies gave big rebates to all of their customers and didn’t just pocket the extra profit in form of a shareholder dividend or executive bonuses.
“How did he die?”
“Oh, you know, he couldn’t get out of the way of that truck because the speed limiter kicked in.”
A) How often is acceleration above posted speed limits the only way to avoid a fatal accident?
B) How often is speeding the cause of an accident, or how often does speeding make the difference between an accident and a fatal accident?
If B>A, then we can go ahead and ignore your comment.
Our Lincoln’s adaptive cruise control can be set to so-called “intelligent” mode. It’s incapable of understanding when school zone limits are not in effect…
The reason the hard speed limiters exist is because when self driving comes along, if your self driving car gets a ticket, you car company will get it, not you. Self driving cars can’t speed because car companies buy lawyering in bulk.
So the sooner we all start obeying the speed limit, the better it is for the car companies… which is a switch from what worked for them previously.
Also…
The speed limit is easy to know. Just see what the fee structure is for tickets. It is usually 1-9 MPH over is one thing, 10-19 is another, higher fee and 20-29 over is an even higher fee. Cops are not pulling you over for the little revenue the community make on the 1-9 over tickets unless you are black or Hispanic.
What about the Asians, the Yugoslavians, and the Inuit? I feel like you are missing a few checks on the oppressed box.
Get real.
You forgot the Czechoslovakians.
No I didn’t. They are too busy fighting the ethnic war in Hamtramick against the Chaldeans and the Slavs while the Bosniaks gobble up houses.
It’s a real thing.