2 ms·

Regulations already mandate things like seatbelts, airbags, and backup cams in cars. I fail to see how "your car should not be able to go over 100 MPH" is signi

Regulations already mandate things like seatbelts, airbags, and backup cams in cars. I fail to see how "your car should not be able to go over 100 MPH" is significantly different. Another reason I find so many of these knee-jerk, vapid "muh freedom" responses so annoying is because I think there is valid concern over how this would be implemented, e.g. by using GPS to vary the limit as mentioned in the article.

nullindividual 3y ago
It is very different from the other things you mention as it takes away control of the vehicle from the driver. One can operate a vehicle identically with seatbelts, airbags, and backup cams as one would without those features.
KevinMS 3y ago
just to add to that: what percentage of accidents would be prevented if your car could only go up to 99? I didn't find that in the article. I didn't see the article mention that a speed of 99 would have prevented or lessened that minivan accident either. So we don't know. But we do know that once this tech is mandated, politicians will start demagogueing for lower and lower speeds. Slower speeds wouldn't bother me much because I'm a slow driver, but I could easily see this being turned into disabling cars during lock-downs, snowstorms, curfews, martial law in some countries, owing taxes etc, etc, etc.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > But we do know that once this tech is mandated, politicians will start demagogueing for lower and lower speeds. No, we don't. I don't buy this slippery slope argument at all. Right down the road from me is a highway where the speed limit is 85 MPH, so it's not like politicians have been clamoring to lower speed limits just because we have one. This is the same argument that has occurred with gun control (i.e., if we give an inch to any sort of reasonable regulations of guns that it means we'll be letting the government take all of our guns!) that has not been born out by history.

nullindividual 3y ago

It is very different from the other things you mention as it takes away control of the vehicle from the driver. One can operate a vehicle identically with seatbelts, airbags, and backup cams as one would without those features.

KevinMS 3y ago

just to add to that: what percentage of accidents would be prevented if your car could only go up to 99? I didn't find that in the article. I didn't see the article mention that a speed of 99 would have prevented or lessened that minivan accident either. So we don't know. But we do know that once this tech is mandated, politicians will start demagogueing for lower and lower speeds. Slower speeds wouldn't bother me much because I'm a slow driver, but I could easily see this being turned into disabling cars during lock-downs, snowstorms, curfews, martial law in some countries, owing taxes etc, etc, etc.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> But we do know that once this tech is mandated, politicians will start demagogueing for lower and lower speeds. No, we don't. I don't buy this slippery slope argument at all. Right down the road from me is a highway where the speed limit is 85 MPH, so it's not like politicians have been clamoring to lower speed limits just because we have one. This is the same argument that has occurred with gun control (i.e., if we give an inch to any sort of reasonable regulations of guns that it means we'll be letting the government take all of our guns!) that has not been born out by history.