Is anybody else noticing there’s an awful lot of these news articles about technology being set up to take away our ability to make choices?
As someone who doesn’t even look at his speedo, I don’t like it but it’s technically the law. But I do think there are other driving laws that are more important they don’t ever enforce. Like driving in the left lane on the interstate or highway for 46 fucking miles ect.
Some years back I read a short article about looking for a reason for “pop up traffic jams” - you know, the ones that don’t seem to have a cause and just disappear when you get to a certain spot.
He seemed genuinely surprised when he learned that most jams are caused by drivers going the speed limit in the left lane(s). He thought this was “okay” and “following the law”, but discovered it’s supposed to be used for passing, not “hanging out”!
The good thing is he learned his lesson and encouraged the readers to actually follow the law about passing lanes. The bad news is that this was a revelation at all. When I see comments like yours I involuntarily relive that rage I had when I read that “who’da known?” article.
Seems I was the only one reading that day.
For my part, I tend to be in the left lanes because I’m constantly pulling out to pass (people can’t seem to maintain consistent speed or find the cruise button), so when I’m there, I just keep an eye on the rear-view mirror and pull over if someone is gaining on me.
I can see why people may be worried about these. But if your choices consist of blatant disregard for other people’s lives, and actively putting them at risk, then… yeah, maybe you shouldn’t have the ability to make them.
Not speaking to you directly. Just in general.
Oh don’t get me wrong I agree with it in principle for that circumstance. The problem is these things never stay in those conditions. Utilization creeps. It starts with let’s protect the children let’s protect the innocent, and pretty soon nobody can do what they want anymore.
Besides, that’s what the laws are for and they should have their license revoked or they go to jail.
Put another way, as Ben Franklin once said, those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither.
This particular case seems to me like putting a breathalyzer in an impaired driver’s car. These aren’t toys, they’re dangerous machines that we’re doing nothing about being built more dangerous by the year. If someone egregiously breaks the law and gets a limiter as punishment I’m okay with it like I’m okay with a breathalyzer.
My point is that in a few years, all of a sudden, limiters will be mandated in every car (but not actively used). Some years after that, a law will pass that forces all cars to be limited to the posted speed limit.
This is the “You have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide” fallacy.
It’s not an issue of whether, under certain circumstances, it is justifiable for certain individuals. The issue is the erosion of personal freedom and privacy that it enables and will eventually occur.
For example, EZ-Pass was marketed as an optional choice to speed up your travel on toll roads. The tracking and use of that information was a side effect never discussed, but periodically showed up when someone who did something wrong was tracked, found, and arrested because of it.
Now on most of those roads, EZ-Pass is effectively mandatory as there are no payment lanes and thus your license is photographed and a bill is sent in the mail.
Total surveillance. No avoidance. Now Flock cameras are going up everywhere, so you can’t even avoid tracking by staying off those highways.
Do you see what I’m describing? Cars have GPS and Cell radios and now car companies are selling your telemetry to insurance companies, who use it to raise your expenses whether or not you actually cost them anything.
They’re peddling “safety” through us giving up privacy (and by extension, freedom).
That headline brought forth an image of Judge Dredd putting a chip in somebody’s head that keeps them from ever jaywalking again.
You will obey the laws, citizen.
Sounds like the same invasion as an IID when someone has been drunk driving. Driving is a privilege, not a right and people who treat driving a dangerous machine like playing with a toy should suffer punishment. It’s pretty basic stuff for breaking the law to be followed by a punishment.
See my reply to your reply to my other comment.
Why do we make street legal cars that can even go 90? I once went 155 on a Yamaha R6. Why can we buy stuff that can even go that fast? Seems like a huge waste tbh.
Can’t possibly limit the speed of cars.
Ebikes though, fuck your top speed. The government decides
Why limit it? We have plenty of highways where that’s a perfectly acceptable speed. Very long, very straight, and no turning traffic.
Because there are a lot of racetracks in the world, and a few people who take their cars and bikes to them
I get that, but my 2006 minivan can do 110…
Absolutely no need for that. Lol
Okay, have fun climbing the Rocky Mountains on your road trip vacation. Oh wait.
That’s not how speed limiters work.
I do not understand how those limiters work, but if It works on limiting power and torque, then You may have some difficulty getting up a very steep hill like one found in the rockies.
My ego is perfectly capable of surviving being wrong.
They cut out fuel when you reach max speed. They don’t limit power or acceleration below top speed. They only limit top speed. They of course don’t shut down the engine. Just make it stop accelerating. Probably has more to do with fuel mixture, not literally cutting whole fuel off.
Good to know. Still don’t like it. Another step in taking away freedom of individuals and mentally neutering an entire population.
And how do you know that?
To be fair a lot of non-performance cars were limited to 110 through the 90s and 2000s. Not sure when they changed it, but I had a 91 miata, limited at 110. Ford probe, 110. Nissan sentra, yeah 110.
None of those cars were terribly fun to drive at that speed. Floaty, white kunckle ride. Any bump and it would have ended in blood.
There really isn’t much of a reason for anything more. As an adult who speeds all the time at 25+ I would not find any reason to crack 100. 90-95 is at the far end for me. Usually 80-85 on open roads.
Over 100 and even in a good car with good tires, brakes and suspension, if something happens, you have so little time to react and you’re already at the limits of what your car can do. Do that in a crapheap with worn tires, brakes, suspension and you’re fucked if you hit a rough section of road.
Sounds like it’s an alternative to license suspending so that you don’t cripple lower income people by revoking transportation.
As one of those “lower income” people… I’ve never really been a speedster on the road…
Excess speed eats into fuel efficiency - big time.
Who’s blowing gas money like a sailor on shore leave with fuel as expensive as it is right now? Morons, that’s who.
Fuck that.
No, it is an entertainment expense to me and therefore not moronic. Just because you cannot afford it, does not mean others cannot.
Morons, that’s who.
There are a loooooooooot of morons out there.
The common clay of the New West
