4 ms·
Most discussions around this argue about the implementation details the technology, perhaps as a proxy for those to signal disapproval of the proposed legislati
by samtho 3y ago
Most discussions around this argue about the implementation details the technology, perhaps as a proxy for those to signal disapproval of the proposed legislation. I’m guessing it’s because of either not wanting to directly express opposition to this idea at the risk of looking like a Luddite, small-government conservative, or whatever unpopular-in-California group that might happen to also agree, or they may might not have a compelling or logically sound reason to oppose it.
The implementation details are irrelevant. The criticisms of the technology will be met with continued improvements until those who supposedly oppose it are satisfied when it becomes rock solid, i.e. don’t strawman your own argument. You are also entitled to hold your own opinion on this, absent of any evidence or really anything to back it up.
The simple question I ask is:
> If we assume that this technology works every time, all the time, would you still welcome this law?
For me, absolutely not. This actively takes control away from the driver and for that reason, this is an unacceptable solution. This is just an opinion I hold.
- rich_sasha 3y agoIt restricts the liberties of a driver, sure (though speeding is not permitted, so it doesn't actually restrict any rights) but enforces other drivers' and pedestrians' right to safety. That said, I agree with current technology levels, I'd be more worried about how that goes wrong more than anything.
- adingus 3y agoSafety from law breakers (speeders) is not a right in the US. 'Safety' isn't even a right. I'm not sure why you'd elevate someone's safety from a specific thing to a right yet make a person's autonomy a liberty. Also you're restricting the liberties of the driver (a specific, identifiable person in the case of non-autonomous vehicles) in favor of people who may not even exist (other drivers or pedestrians may not even be around) which seems draconian. When you pass these laws and restrictions, what are you giving up? Isn't someone's sense of self control and autonomy worth something to society?
- CalRobert 3y ago"Isn't someone's sense of self control and autonomy..." Indeed, it's worth a lot! Which is why I want my children to be able to walk and bike safely anywhere in the town. Or anyone else who can't, doesn't, or simply prefers not to drive, for that matter.
- adingus 3y agoThats great that we both agree that we want safe streets and value autonomy! Glad I could change your mind. Now let's work on incentivizing people who don't drive safely to do so without impacting the liberties of those who do.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoIt’s easier to convince voters and politicians to enact technical control mandates than to persuade the lizard brain of your average human. Is that lazy? Sure, but there is no extra credit in life for taking the hard path. Much easier to go after politicians and say “People will keep dying if you don’t enact this policy, and we will vote you out if you don’t.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/10/magazine/dangerous-driving.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/10/magazine/dangerous-drivin... | https://archive.is/2024.01.16-150053/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/10/magazine/dangerous-driving.html https://archive.is/2024.01.16-150053/https://www.nytimes.com... (“Why Are American Drivers So Deadly? After decades of declining fatality rates, dangerous driving has surged again.” > Above all, though, the problem seems to be us — the American public, the American driver. “It’s not an exaggeration to say behavior on the road today is the worst I’ve ever seen,” Capt. Michael Brown, a state police district commander in Michigan, told me. “It’s not just the volume. It’s the variety. There’s impaired driving, which constituted 40 percent of our fatalities last year. There are people going twice the legal limit on surface streets. There’s road rage,” Brown went on. “There’s impatience — right before we started talking, I got an email from a woman who was driving along in traffic and saw some guy fly by her off the roadway, on the shoulder, at 80, 90 miles an hour.” Brown stressed it was rare to receive such a message: “It’s got so bad, so extremely typical,” he said, “that people aren’t going to alert us unless it’s super egregious.”
- CalRobert 3y agoIt's taking away their ability to commit a crime which endangers other people.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y agoIf that's the motive here, then why not start with limiting guns?
- CalRobert 3y agoThat sounds like a sensible thing to do!
- RhysU 3y agoI am terrified by the sentiment that we should take away free will because it might be dangerous.
- CalRobert 3y agoThe difference is that your right to swing your fists ends where my face begins. And operating a 2 ton death machine (the words of noted car enthusiast Elon Musk, not my own) in excess of the speed limit near people walking, biking, and just going about their lives is deeply selfish.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- umvi 3y ago> The difference is that your right to swing your fists ends where my face begins So... we should mandate everyone wear arm braces that contain computer chips that will prevent people from punching others?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]