5 ms·

Presumably the same way you would back up the assumption that it will work, preconceived notions on the effects of regulations in general?

user-the-name 5y ago
You don't think that these technologies actually work? Is that what you are saying?
- 87329868723 5y ago
  I think it may be theoretically possible, but I don't think it will be implemented in a way that will work when it's mandated by law. Betting against regulations fulfilling their advertised purpose is usually a good bet. I think the most likely outcome of this is that it will make no difference to any driver, but that cars will be a little more expensive and collect more data that can be used for harmful purposes. Regardless, if we shouldn't assume that it will be harmful, we also shouldn't assume that it will be helpful. EDIT: I have now read the article and would like to retract my guess that it will make no difference. It says that this will "require that the system be 'open' to remote access by 'authorized' third parties at any time". That's absolutely catastrophic and will almost certainly kill people.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    These technologies already exist, I don't know why you talk about them as a hypothetical. Do you not think that the existing technology that is deployed in real cars is actually working?
    - 87329868723 5y ago
      Some technologies work and some don't, although I can't think of anything that works and was mandated before it was already in widespread use. In any case, this is much more involved and fuzzy than normal safety technologies. Additionally, see the edit to my previous comment, the state having a remote backdoor into cars is incredibly dangerous.
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        You original post was doubting that this would save people from drunk drivers. You still haven't explained why you think it wouldn't do that.
        mark-r 5y ago
        Making driving illegal for everybody would certainly save people from drunk drivers too. Do you think that's a good idea?
        yarky 5y ago
        Sure, why not?

user-the-name 5y ago

You don't think that these technologies actually work? Is that what you are saying?

87329868723 5y ago
I think it may be theoretically possible, but I don't think it will be implemented in a way that will work when it's mandated by law. Betting against regulations fulfilling their advertised purpose is usually a good bet. I think the most likely outcome of this is that it will make no difference to any driver, but that cars will be a little more expensive and collect more data that can be used for harmful purposes. Regardless, if we shouldn't assume that it will be harmful, we also shouldn't assume that it will be helpful. EDIT: I have now read the article and would like to retract my guess that it will make no difference. It says that this will "require that the system be 'open' to remote access by 'authorized' third parties at any time". That's absolutely catastrophic and will almost certainly kill people.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  These technologies already exist, I don't know why you talk about them as a hypothetical. Do you not think that the existing technology that is deployed in real cars is actually working?
  - 87329868723 5y ago
    Some technologies work and some don't, although I can't think of anything that works and was mandated before it was already in widespread use. In any case, this is much more involved and fuzzy than normal safety technologies. Additionally, see the edit to my previous comment, the state having a remote backdoor into cars is incredibly dangerous.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      You original post was doubting that this would save people from drunk drivers. You still haven't explained why you think it wouldn't do that.
      - mark-r 5y ago
        Making driving illegal for everybody would certainly save people from drunk drivers too. Do you think that's a good idea?
        yarky 5y ago
        Sure, why not?