3 ms·

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 pos

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
Someone has a heart attack and I have to rush them to the hospital.
- tech_ken 2y ago
  That's specifically not a valid (or legal) reason to speed (in the US at least) because driving recklessly in an emergency is a great way to create two emergencies. Emergency vehicles exist because of this fact; they get sirens, visible markings, right of way, and professional drivers, all to help ensure that cases where the speed limit is overridden are done so as safely as possible for all parties. None of this is true about your consumer car; people don't know to get out of your way, and may not be aware how fast you're actually approaching. Moreover, you are not a professional driver (and if you happen to be then pretend you're someone else). Driving at like 80MPH under a highly novel and stressful situation is TBH probably beyond your capabilities to do safely unless you're operating on like a straight road with no other drivers. An overwhelming majority of the time you're going to be better served calling an ambulance in this case, and I think pretty much any emergency professional will agree with me. At the very least the people who make money by reducing car accidents do: https://www.progressive.com/lifelanes/on-the-road/speeding-in-an-emergency/#:~:text=Can%20you%20speed%20for%20a,faster%20if%20you%20don't https://www.progressive.com/lifelanes/on-the-road/speeding-i....

stavros 2y ago

Someone has a heart attack and I have to rush them to the hospital.

tech_ken 2y ago
That's specifically not a valid (or legal) reason to speed (in the US at least) because driving recklessly in an emergency is a great way to create two emergencies. Emergency vehicles exist because of this fact; they get sirens, visible markings, right of way, and professional drivers, all to help ensure that cases where the speed limit is overridden are done so as safely as possible for all parties. None of this is true about your consumer car; people don't know to get out of your way, and may not be aware how fast you're actually approaching. Moreover, you are not a professional driver (and if you happen to be then pretend you're someone else). Driving at like 80MPH under a highly novel and stressful situation is TBH probably beyond your capabilities to do safely unless you're operating on like a straight road with no other drivers. An overwhelming majority of the time you're going to be better served calling an ambulance in this case, and I think pretty much any emergency professional will agree with me. At the very least the people who make money by reducing car accidents do: https://www.progressive.com/lifelanes/on-the-road/speeding-in-an-emergency/#:~:text=Can%20you%20speed%20for%20a,faster%20if%20you%20don't https://www.progressive.com/lifelanes/on-the-road/speeding-i....