IntroductionIn this article, I will argue that there is a moral case for setting mandatory speed alerts and speed limiters in all cars. These technologies are fairly intrusive. Nevertheless, my claim is that we should accept these measures in our cars to solve a major problem in road safety: speeding. In 2010, in Europe, more than 30,000 people were killed and 1.4 million were injured in road traffic, with speeding as a major cause. Current enforcement measures work to some extent but are clearly not sufficient. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) systems are highly effective additional measures to counter speeding. Advisory ISA warns drivers if they transgress the speed limits. Limiting ISA makes speeding impossible, and consequently this technology can prevent up to 50% of fatal accidents. 1 Intelligent Speed Adaptation is indispensable for reducing the risks of car driving to a more acceptable level. Many philosophers uncritically refer to driving as an example of acceptable risk imposition.2 The benefits of car driving are considered to justify the risks involved, which are perceived as being relatively low. Car driving is regarded as a morally acceptable practice from which we all benefit. However, as I will argue below, this view is problematic even with regard to lawful car driving. Moreover, in appealing to car driving as an example of acceptable risk imposition, one fails to appreciate the fact that the practice involves massive transgressions of the rules. Pedestrians, cyclists, and lawful drivers have good reason to reject the risks involved in our actual car driving practice. No tacit consent to the risks of driving can be inferred from individuals' choice to walk, cycle, and drive.