214
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2026
214 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
86419 readers
2751 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
With how all cars are connected these days, we could easily throttle them using GPS data depending on the road you're on. I don't really get why cars can even go so fast in general, max should be twenty over the highway limit.
Nobody really wants that though I'm guessing.
When you car slams on the brakes suddenly because it thinks you're suddenly driving on the jog road next to the highway, don't complain to me.
The same applies to stopping it from driving full speed into a house. Hence why I said most don't want that. Some clear drawbacks.
That being said, putting a max speed that is only a bit above highway speed is an easy win imo.
Slamming the brakes on the highway because either map data is incorrect, it misread a sign, or GNSS is misplacing the car is not a drawback, it's a massive fucking safety hazard.
A massive safety hazard is a clear drawback...
No a drawback would be a minor nuisance. You can live with a drawback. That would not be a minor nuisance and definitely not something you could live with.
You are arguing semantics and aren't even right about it. A drawback can be minor or major. We are in agreement but your being silly about the words I use even though they are completely valid. You might want a synonym that's harsher but that doesn't make the use of the word wrong.
I'm basically saying it's a problem and you are going "no fool, it's a really really big problem", like no shit, that's what I said. I even added the word clear to show that's it's not a small drawback but a major one.
It really really really doesn't
If the car can't be trusted to know if it's on the highway or a residential street, it can't be trusted to know if it's on the highway or on a residential street in front of a house.
I don't know what system would work for one but not the other.
If your misunderstanding of how a machine works is that fundamental I don't think there's a reason to continue this.
It's all the same type of software that would be used and it would sometimes break randomly for no clear reason no matter the use case. Why would they tackle detection differently between being on the highway, on a residential street or on a street in front of a house? The same edge cases would apply to each (like billboards or faulty GPS signal for example).
I mean why put limits on roads if we let cars ignore them anyway?