4 ms·

> This feels very Big Brother, where someone (or some system) is watching over you so you don't break any laws Is having a speed-limit in the first place 'pre-

> This feels very Big Brother, where someone (or some system) is watching over you so you don't break any laws Is having a speed-limit in the first place 'pre-crime prevention'? Regulating technology that can have public health implications is standard for governments, so to me it seems normal that they might site this regulation in the vehicle itself, rather than at usage-time. Is requiring cars to have like an ABS system preventing users from committing the crime of vehicular manslaughter? Or is it protecting the pedestrian from being killed by a negligent driver?

stavros 2y ago
There's no downside to ABS. There's plenty of downside to a system that blanket bans speeding, even when the operator knows better than the system and is taking a calculated risk.
- tech_ken 2y ago
  That's a subtle change of framing; I'm talking about this idea of the thing as a 'pre-crime' tool. I agree that the implementation you describe (ex. a hard cap on speed based on ex. GPS speed limit data) is a 'bad idea', but I don't agree that it's like a 'big brother bad idea', just that it's a bad implementation of an otherwise normal idea. There's plenty of ways one can imagine a gentle system of pushback against speed limits (ex. a warning bell, haptic feedback, mechanical governor impeding the engine from exceeding a certain RPM) that would not have the risks you're using to differentiate this from ABS.
  - stavros 2y ago
    I agree, if it's just a reminder, it's not as bad, it's just a step in the wrong direction. If they then change it to prevent you from breaking the limit, that will really be a nightmare scenario.
    - tech_ken 2y ago
      > If they then change it to prevent you from breaking the limit But your ability to break the limit is fully predicted on the capabilities of the car? It's not like it's some kind of natural right you have to go 80 in a 65, you need someone to make and sell you a vehicle which will do that for you, and regulatory bodies limit the capabilities of consumer goods all the time (ex. radio transmitter devices). Again say they required a mechanical governor in the car which capped the limit at say 60mph for all vehicles sold, it's going to prevent you from accelerating faster than that always (so no 'braking' at any point, but at 60mph your engine will no longer by able to apply acceleration). Is this also a nightmare scenario? Or is it specifically the telemetry required to localize that to the roadway speed limit?
      - stavros 2y ago
        That's not so much a nightmare scenario as it is a car that's not fit for purpose. Making the car always obey the speed limit assumes that a) speed limits are always correct (they are definitely not) and b) there is never a valid reason to exceed the speed limit (also obviously wrong). That's why this is a nightmare scenario. You have an unthinking, unfeeling machine enforcing laws, without regard for nuance or extenuating circumstances. Laws shouldn't work that way.
        tech_ken 2y ago
        I dunno I take issue with (b), I think you're leaning too hard on "obviously". IMO it's reasonable to say that like 70MPH is the fastest a car is allowed to possibly go on public roads and cap it there. Possibly I lack imagination, but what's the actual harm that results from that? I can see cases where it would be inconvenient, but actually harmful in a way that warrants an exemption? On its face that seems pretty unlikely (to me). Moreover, you continue to frame this as a 'subtractive' restriction, taking away something that a person has access to by default. But technology regulation like this is capping the 'additive' function of a tool. Cars add to your capabilities, and this regulation limits the extent to which they do that. Circling back to my previous point, it's tough for me to think of a case where limitations applied to your technological augmentation qualify as a 'harm', especially given the nature of the specific tech.

stavros 2y ago

There's no downside to ABS. There's plenty of downside to a system that blanket bans speeding, even when the operator knows better than the system and is taking a calculated risk.

tech_ken 2y ago
That's a subtle change of framing; I'm talking about this idea of the thing as a 'pre-crime' tool. I agree that the implementation you describe (ex. a hard cap on speed based on ex. GPS speed limit data) is a 'bad idea', but I don't agree that it's like a 'big brother bad idea', just that it's a bad implementation of an otherwise normal idea. There's plenty of ways one can imagine a gentle system of pushback against speed limits (ex. a warning bell, haptic feedback, mechanical governor impeding the engine from exceeding a certain RPM) that would not have the risks you're using to differentiate this from ABS.
- stavros 2y ago
  I agree, if it's just a reminder, it's not as bad, it's just a step in the wrong direction. If they then change it to prevent you from breaking the limit, that will really be a nightmare scenario.
  - tech_ken 2y ago
    > If they then change it to prevent you from breaking the limit But your ability to break the limit is fully predicted on the capabilities of the car? It's not like it's some kind of natural right you have to go 80 in a 65, you need someone to make and sell you a vehicle which will do that for you, and regulatory bodies limit the capabilities of consumer goods all the time (ex. radio transmitter devices). Again say they required a mechanical governor in the car which capped the limit at say 60mph for all vehicles sold, it's going to prevent you from accelerating faster than that always (so no 'braking' at any point, but at 60mph your engine will no longer by able to apply acceleration). Is this also a nightmare scenario? Or is it specifically the telemetry required to localize that to the roadway speed limit?
    - stavros 2y ago
      That's not so much a nightmare scenario as it is a car that's not fit for purpose. Making the car always obey the speed limit assumes that a) speed limits are always correct (they are definitely not) and b) there is never a valid reason to exceed the speed limit (also obviously wrong). That's why this is a nightmare scenario. You have an unthinking, unfeeling machine enforcing laws, without regard for nuance or extenuating circumstances. Laws shouldn't work that way.
      - tech_ken 2y ago
        I dunno I take issue with (b), I think you're leaning too hard on "obviously". IMO it's reasonable to say that like 70MPH is the fastest a car is allowed to possibly go on public roads and cap it there. Possibly I lack imagination, but what's the actual harm that results from that? I can see cases where it would be inconvenient, but actually harmful in a way that warrants an exemption? On its face that seems pretty unlikely (to me). Moreover, you continue to frame this as a 'subtractive' restriction, taking away something that a person has access to by default. But technology regulation like this is capping the 'additive' function of a tool. Cars add to your capabilities, and this regulation limits the extent to which they do that. Circling back to my previous point, it's tough for me to think of a case where limitations applied to your technological augmentation qualify as a 'harm', especially given the nature of the specific tech.