6 ms·

> a kill switch The funny thing is that's what cars do to other people because we don't have enough monitoring. My e-bike is limited to 20 because "safety". Y

by rcpt 2y ago

> a kill switch The funny thing is that's what cars do to other people because we don't have enough monitoring. My e-bike is limited to 20 because "safety". Your car should be to.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
- kelnos 2y ago
  The thing that dismays me about your comment is that you seem to have decided that government cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and so we should have fewer restrictions on everything, regardless of the danger of any particular thing, or what that particular thing is designed for. (If I've mischaracterized or misunderstood, my apologies; please correct me.) Let's take some two hopefully-simple examples: speed limiters on cars, and guns. I agree with you when it comes to speed limiters on cars. We shouldn't have them, and government should not be allowed to mandate them. Sure, some people drive too fast for conditions, and that's dangerous, and sometimes they hurt or kill other people by doing so. But we can combat this to some extent with education, licensing requirements, and the threat of penalties for when something bad happens. And I can think of several situations (emergency or otherwise) where someone might be justified in driving faster than a speed limiter might allow, and if the limiter was in place, that could also have bad consequences. But then let's look at guns. They are designed to injure and kill; that is their main intended purpose. Most gun deaths, IIRC, are attributed to suicides and accidental discharges (the latter of which often involve children; I am definitely not a "think of the children!" type person, but I think in this case it might actually apply). Other gun deaths involve mass shootings, gang violence, and other criminal activity. The threat of home invasions is highly overblown, and the vast majority of the people who buy them to keep at home for protection will never need them (and will sometimes be involved in accidents or other unintended bad uses). People (in the US, primarily) who think that they need guns to protect them from a tyrannical government are delusional (if the government/military really did try to violently oppress them, the idea that they'd be able to successfully fight back is laughable). There are lots of different types of guns, from small-caliber, small-capacity weapons that don't do quite as much damage; up to semi-auto and auto "military style" weapons that can be used to kill large numbers of people in a fairly short amount of time. I don't think I'll ever be convinced that we shouldn't have any restrictions on gun ownership, and I would probably not even be bothered by the idea of a complete ban on private gun ownership (obviously not constitutionally possible here in the US). But as a middle ground, I at least support strict licensing and background-check requirements for firearm ownership, and I think that certain classes of weapons should be restricted from private ownership. I don't intend this to turn into a political discussion about gun control, but I just think it's weird to consider every possible kind of restriction on freedom in the same way, without critically examining what is being restricted, what it is designed to, what kind of harm a lack of restrictions will cause, and what are the negative/unintended consequences of putting those restrictions in place. A few specific comments: > I've realized with time that while drivers can be dangerous, they are relatively limited in how much harm they can create. This just doesn't ring true to me. Car-related fatality statistics paint a very different picture to me. > I honestly rather want everyone including me to have freedom to do stupid things instead of limiting freedom. Maybe this is where the disconnect is, and where we might not be able to agree on anything. The problem with this kind of statement is that it doesn't acknowledge that personal freedoms can come at a cost to other people. If I screw something up in the exercise of my freedoms, it usually doesn't just hurt me: others get caught up in it too. My "freedoms" should include being able to live my life in peace, without other people destroying that peace, as long as I am not hurting anyone else. Unfortunately that can't be done without putting restrictions on what I and others can do in many situations.
salawat 2y ago
Your e-bike shouldn't be limited. You should get on that.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > Your e-bike shouldn't be limited. You should get on that. Absolutely. It's the first thing we fix on our 2-wheel transpos.
- rcpt 2y ago
  You're right. Because my e-bike is of negligible danger to others. But cars kill tens of thousands every year. Speed limits and red lights being on the honor system isn't working. Luckily technology, like the little GPS tracker in the article, can fix it.
  - skinkestek 2y ago
    Most things that transfer power from individuals to future governments is a clear no from me. I am happy with our current government. But reading history I have realized that the scariest thing that is is powerful governments. Honor and trust work extremely well: anyone of us can create enormous caos if we want to but most of us don't so it doesn't happen.
    - rcpt 2y ago
      I don't like that my kids can no longer cross the street we live on because people have stopped obeying traffic lights and cops no longer enforce the law. The honor system isn't working and people are dying because of it. Now what are your specific fears about speed limiters on cars?
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > I don't like that my kids can no longer cross the street we live on because people have stopped obeying traffic lights and cops no longer enforce the law. The best solution to living in a place with bad people in it, if you can't get them to leave, is to move. There are plenty of places to live where people do obey traffic laws and cops do enforce the law. What I don't like is people trying to punish me, a law-abiding responsible adult, for the misdeeds of others who are not.
wutwutwat 2y ago
One requires a licensed operator. One doesn’t. One requires liability insurance. One doesn’t. Complain about power wheels, because you’re comparing two things that have nothing to do with each other.
Ichthypresbyter 2y ago
Your ebike is limited because it can legally be operated by anybody (including a child) without needing any kind of license. If you want to legally operate a faster electric two-wheeled vehicle, take the test to get a motorbike license.
- lostlogin 2y ago
  Is that why? I get up to multiples of that on a push bike every day. The kids that rip past me do too.
  - rcpt 2y ago
    It's not why. That's just a talking point that gets repeated all too much. In most places you don't need a license to operate a boat and they go as fast as you can afford. Despite what the other poster is saying, there's no law of physics that says speed can only be unlocked by licensing.
    - Kerb_ 2y ago
      I dunno about "most places". I definitely had to get a boating license, though for some reason the law had an exception for people born before 1978. A cursory search show most states have some sort of legislation regarding it. Many other countries have different legislation based on engine horsepower and age, but it's definitely regulated to some degree most places I've seen. I don't suppose you'd be able to paddle hard enough to cause serious damage
    - ddingus 2y ago
      Oregon resolves that by regulating -on motor" only speeds to something a little under 30 and less than a kilowatt. Everything else is simply a pedal assisted ride. And a vehicle needs to offer pedal power to qualify for unlicensed use as an e-bike. Otherwise, it becomes a motorcycle and requires registration,
  - ddingus 2y ago
    I used to as a kid myself. The norms were generally slower overall, limited by muscle fatigue mostly.

by rcpt 2y ago

> a kill switch The funny thing is that's what cars do to other people because we don't have enough monitoring. My e-bike is limited to 20 because "safety". Your car should be to.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kelnos 2y ago
The thing that dismays me about your comment is that you seem to have decided that government cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and so we should have fewer restrictions on everything, regardless of the danger of any particular thing, or what that particular thing is designed for. (If I've mischaracterized or misunderstood, my apologies; please correct me.) Let's take some two hopefully-simple examples: speed limiters on cars, and guns. I agree with you when it comes to speed limiters on cars. We shouldn't have them, and government should not be allowed to mandate them. Sure, some people drive too fast for conditions, and that's dangerous, and sometimes they hurt or kill other people by doing so. But we can combat this to some extent with education, licensing requirements, and the threat of penalties for when something bad happens. And I can think of several situations (emergency or otherwise) where someone might be justified in driving faster than a speed limiter might allow, and if the limiter was in place, that could also have bad consequences. But then let's look at guns. They are designed to injure and kill; that is their main intended purpose. Most gun deaths, IIRC, are attributed to suicides and accidental discharges (the latter of which often involve children; I am definitely not a "think of the children!" type person, but I think in this case it might actually apply). Other gun deaths involve mass shootings, gang violence, and other criminal activity. The threat of home invasions is highly overblown, and the vast majority of the people who buy them to keep at home for protection will never need them (and will sometimes be involved in accidents or other unintended bad uses). People (in the US, primarily) who think that they need guns to protect them from a tyrannical government are delusional (if the government/military really did try to violently oppress them, the idea that they'd be able to successfully fight back is laughable). There are lots of different types of guns, from small-caliber, small-capacity weapons that don't do quite as much damage; up to semi-auto and auto "military style" weapons that can be used to kill large numbers of people in a fairly short amount of time. I don't think I'll ever be convinced that we shouldn't have any restrictions on gun ownership, and I would probably not even be bothered by the idea of a complete ban on private gun ownership (obviously not constitutionally possible here in the US). But as a middle ground, I at least support strict licensing and background-check requirements for firearm ownership, and I think that certain classes of weapons should be restricted from private ownership. I don't intend this to turn into a political discussion about gun control, but I just think it's weird to consider every possible kind of restriction on freedom in the same way, without critically examining what is being restricted, what it is designed to, what kind of harm a lack of restrictions will cause, and what are the negative/unintended consequences of putting those restrictions in place. A few specific comments: > I've realized with time that while drivers can be dangerous, they are relatively limited in how much harm they can create. This just doesn't ring true to me. Car-related fatality statistics paint a very different picture to me. > I honestly rather want everyone including me to have freedom to do stupid things instead of limiting freedom. Maybe this is where the disconnect is, and where we might not be able to agree on anything. The problem with this kind of statement is that it doesn't acknowledge that personal freedoms can come at a cost to other people. If I screw something up in the exercise of my freedoms, it usually doesn't just hurt me: others get caught up in it too. My "freedoms" should include being able to live my life in peace, without other people destroying that peace, as long as I am not hurting anyone else. Unfortunately that can't be done without putting restrictions on what I and others can do in many situations.

salawat 2y ago

Your e-bike shouldn't be limited. You should get on that.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> Your e-bike shouldn't be limited. You should get on that. Absolutely. It's the first thing we fix on our 2-wheel transpos.
rcpt 2y ago
You're right. Because my e-bike is of negligible danger to others. But cars kill tens of thousands every year. Speed limits and red lights being on the honor system isn't working. Luckily technology, like the little GPS tracker in the article, can fix it.
- skinkestek 2y ago
  Most things that transfer power from individuals to future governments is a clear no from me. I am happy with our current government. But reading history I have realized that the scariest thing that is is powerful governments. Honor and trust work extremely well: anyone of us can create enormous caos if we want to but most of us don't so it doesn't happen.
  - rcpt 2y ago
    I don't like that my kids can no longer cross the street we live on because people have stopped obeying traffic lights and cops no longer enforce the law. The honor system isn't working and people are dying because of it. Now what are your specific fears about speed limiters on cars?
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > I don't like that my kids can no longer cross the street we live on because people have stopped obeying traffic lights and cops no longer enforce the law. The best solution to living in a place with bad people in it, if you can't get them to leave, is to move. There are plenty of places to live where people do obey traffic laws and cops do enforce the law. What I don't like is people trying to punish me, a law-abiding responsible adult, for the misdeeds of others who are not.

wutwutwat 2y ago

One requires a licensed operator. One doesn’t. One requires liability insurance. One doesn’t. Complain about power wheels, because you’re comparing two things that have nothing to do with each other.

Ichthypresbyter 2y ago

Your ebike is limited because it can legally be operated by anybody (including a child) without needing any kind of license. If you want to legally operate a faster electric two-wheeled vehicle, take the test to get a motorbike license.

lostlogin 2y ago
Is that why? I get up to multiples of that on a push bike every day. The kids that rip past me do too.
- rcpt 2y ago
  It's not why. That's just a talking point that gets repeated all too much. In most places you don't need a license to operate a boat and they go as fast as you can afford. Despite what the other poster is saying, there's no law of physics that says speed can only be unlocked by licensing.
  - Kerb_ 2y ago
    I dunno about "most places". I definitely had to get a boating license, though for some reason the law had an exception for people born before 1978. A cursory search show most states have some sort of legislation regarding it. Many other countries have different legislation based on engine horsepower and age, but it's definitely regulated to some degree most places I've seen. I don't suppose you'd be able to paddle hard enough to cause serious damage
  - ddingus 2y ago
    Oregon resolves that by regulating -on motor" only speeds to something a little under 30 and less than a kilowatt. Everything else is simply a pedal assisted ride. And a vehicle needs to offer pedal power to qualify for unlicensed use as an e-bike. Otherwise, it becomes a motorcycle and requires registration,
- ddingus 2y ago
  I used to as a kid myself. The norms were generally slower overall, limited by muscle fatigue mostly.