By Eric Peters
For NMA
You’ve probably heard about what is being marketed as “speed limit assistance technology.” The italics to make a point of the fact about what is – as opposed to what they’re trying to get you to believe it is.
It is not about “assisting” you – just as you are not being “asked” to “pay your fair share” (an interesting assertion in that it is difficult to understand what constitutes a “fair share” of another person’s earnings).
It is about making you – in italics to make a point about the fact.
In this case, it is about making you drive no faster than whatever the speed limit is on any road you happen to be on. This is not going to be done – via technology – in order to “save lives.”
Rather, speed is going to be controlled – in order to take away whatever little control remains in the hands of drivers, in order to exasperate them and thereby cause them to give up on driving.
Imagine what it will be like when your car won’t let you dive any faster than the government says you may. At first read that may seem – to some – to be a good thing, since it is “the law,” after all, to not drive faster than whatever the government says the speed limit is. Most people agree – understandably – that everything that can reasonably done to prevent people from ignoring laws that criminalize stealing (and so on) ought to be done.
But mark the italics.
There are many things that are illegal. Many of these things are not criminal. They are just injunctions that, if ignored, will cause the individual who ignored them to be treated as if he were a criminal.
A cop does not ask you to “pull over.” If you do not pull over, he will treat you just the same as if you’d held up a 7-11 at gunpoint. It is the same with all laws, which “the law” requires us to obey. Well, except for cops – who are not required to obey speed laws. Or seatbelt laws. Or no-right-on-red laws.
Anyhow, the point is that there’s a moral difference between actions such as exceeding the speed limit and stealing. In law, it is expressed as malum in se (bad in itself, irrespective of legalities) and malum prohibtum (merely illegal).
All of us – well, most of us – know there is no moral harm, as such, in driving faster than the speed limit, which we express (most of us) by “speeding” regularly. If “speeding” were malum in se and most of us did it then you’d have probable cause for saying most of us are criminals.
That’s absurd, of course.
We “speed” because it often reasonable – and not “unsafe” – to drive faster than whatever the speed limit arbitrarily happens to be. Italicized to emphasis the point I’m about to make. For about 20 years – from circa 1974 to circa 1994 – the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) decreed by the federal government was 55 MPH.
On the highway.
It had previously been much higher than that. Most states had highway speed limits in the 65-70 MPH range. At the stroke of a pen – literally – the maximum legally allowable speed became 55. What had been perfectly legal speed the day prior had become – just like that – illegal “speeding.”
This is the very definition of arbitrary.
Enforceable arbitrary. Drivers who’d been within the law the day before were treated as criminals the day after the law – and for the next 20 years, until the NMSL was finally repealed, in one of the very few instances of the federal government agreeing to take back (in kid lingo) something it had imposed.
Driving became enjoyable again because reasonable driving – at reasonable speeds – could be done again without the constant dread of being targeted for enforcement by an armed government worker.
One who wasn’t going to “ask” you to “pull over.”
The NMSL was part of the effort to get people to hate driving (and make them pay for it) but it failed – in part because it was hard to enforce. More finely, it was hard to enforce generally. On all drivers, all the time. An armed government worker could only “pull over” one car at a time. It was still feasible to “speed” and so most of us did, even if we knew it was just a matter of time before we got “pulled over.” The rest of the time we could drive – and that made it worth driving.
Imagine your car enforcing the speed limit. All the time. Every time. Imagine the end of driver discretion. Imagine no longer being able to safely merge with other traffic because it’s going too fast and your car won’t let you get-going fast enough to merge safely. Imagine not being able to “speed” around a semi-truck that can’t even do the speed limit. Or get out of the way of something that’s otherwise going to hit you, by flooring the accelerator pedal – and not getting any acceleration.
Imagine not being able to go – at all – because that is ultimately exactly where this is headed. The car that can prevent you from “speeding” can also prevent you from driving at any speed.
That’s the form of “assistance” that’s coming. That’s already here. Most 2025 model year vehicles already come standard with such “assistance” and by 2029 it will be mandatory.
By which time, most of us will probably rather walk.
Which is precisely what those behind all of this intend – and have been working on for at least the past half-century.
Eric Peters lives in Virginia and enjoys driving cars and motorcycles. In the past, Eric worked as a car journalist for many prominent mainstream media outlets. Currently, he focuses his time writing auto history books, reviewing cars, and blogging about cars+ for his website EricPetersAutos.com.
Editor’s Note: The thoughts and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the National Motorists Association.
