If the math was easier then could we have a speed limit on automobile acceleration?

Our test cars had numerous g sensors to measure acceleration. It was fun. It was also possible to calculate it on the fly.

You can do it yourself with a cheap, used, mechanical, air craft angle of attack meter. You can get them for $5–10 at army surplus stores. 45 degrees means 1 g.

My grandfather was good at math, and at driving. He was an engineer. He had insomnia, and would go out driving at night. I hear that he tried out accelerating really fast but not speeding, and found that the police did give him a ticket, for something like reckless driving. But it was also wrong because it was the middle of the night with empty roads and he was a good driver and not endangering anything but the officers’ sense of authority.

Computers are good at math too, and today, they’re in cars and can be set to record your speed over time. And some insurance companies use this to track people’s acceleration and deceleration, to “save them money” (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!) ... so, it’s possible without any worries about the math, and being done, for the benefit of increasing the profits of already overly-wealthy insurance companies, because HAIL PROFITS FOR LARGE CORPORATIONS! And because of all the people who will believe the lies and deceptions about how it’s so great for safety.

I’m sure they’d LOVE an acceleration limit law that they can add to their systematic tracking of everyone to maximize their profits even further. Oh yay.

Meanwhile, having driven such a device and tested it, and found and confirmed that it is set to penalize the driver with higher rates based on the number of times they even exceed an acceleration or deceleration over 7.5 mph per second (which is not very much), I have to say that it makes me a worse, more dangerous, and FAR MORE ANNOYING driver.

Like my grandfather and my father, I am good at math and physics and driving, and I’m perhaps the most safety-conscious of the three of us. In my consideration, no one should be judging my driving decisions unless I’m obviously actually endangering something. Limiting acceleration or deceleration or using it as an excuse to write tickets or to raise insurance rates is what should be criminal, in my opinion. Not to mention having corporations lobbying governments and writing bills for them.

We live in dark times.

I don’t think it would be useful. Sometimes it is necessary to quickly accelerate or decelerate to avoid an accident. Most accidents are caused by lane changes, which are of course usually accompanied by acceleration or deceleration. Preventing lane changes would have people up in arms.

I don’t know where I came across the statement that most accidents occur during lane changes. I did a Web search and found this article. Toward the end of the article, it says that 3% of fatal accidents involve lane changes, which is much lower than I would have expected. This article says that 9% of all traffic accidents involve lane changes.