Sen. Wiener introduces CA bill to physically stop cars from going 10 mph over speed limit

submitted by noshore4me from abc7news.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]package 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

If you're okay with the government remotely controlling your car's max speed you are a massive faggot and should go jump off a tall building

[–]GuyWhite 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think I’m going to spend some more money on my 1974 Plymouth Valiant to keep it on the road longer.

[–]FUCKAROO7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you're okay with the government remotely controlling your car's max speed you are a massive faggot and should go jump off a tall building

In the realm of technological advancements and the ever-evolving landscape of automotive engineering, the concept of government-mandated speed limiters in vehicles has sparked a heated debate, dividing opinions and igniting discussions amongst various stakeholders. While some individuals embrace this notion as a necessary step towards enhancing road safety and promoting responsible driving, others vehemently oppose such governmental intrusion, viewing it as an infringement on personal liberty and a slippery slope towards authoritarian control. To delve deeper into this multifaceted issue, it is imperative to dissect the arguments presented by both sides of the spectrum, carefully weighing the potential benefits and drawbacks associated with the implementation of remote speed limiters. Government's Perspective: A Case for Enhanced Safety and Traffic Management Proponents of government-controlled speed limiters often point to the staggering statistics of road accidents and fatalities, emphasizing the urgent need for measures that can effectively curb reckless driving and reduce the carnage on our roads. They argue that by remotely regulating the maximum speed of vehicles, the government can play a proactive role in preventing speeding-related incidents, thereby saving lives and minimizing injuries. Furthermore, advocates of this approach highlight the potential for improved traffic flow and congestion reduction. They contend that by limiting the speed of vehicles, particularly during peak traffic hours or in congested urban areas, the government can optimize the efficiency of transportation networks, easing congestion and minimizing travel time for commuters. Concerns and Criticisms: The Case for Individual Freedom and Autonomy Opponents of government-mandated speed limiters raise valid concerns regarding the erosion of individual liberty and the potential for abuse of power. They argue that the government should not have the authority to dictate how fast a person can drive their own vehicle, as this constitutes an infringement on personal autonomy and freedom of choice. Critics also express apprehension about the potential for government overreach and the slippery slope argument. They contend that once the government is granted the power to remotely control the speed of vehicles, it could potentially expand its authority to regulate other aspects of driving behavior, leading to a gradual erosion of individual liberties and the imposition of a nanny state. Technological Considerations: Ensuring Safety and Preventing Tampering The feasibility and effectiveness of government-controlled speed limiters hinge on the reliability and security of the underlying technology. To ensure the integrity and safety of the system, robust measures must be put in place to prevent tampering or hacking attempts. Furthermore, the interoperability and compatibility of the technology across different vehicle makes and models need to be carefully addressed to ensure widespread adoption and seamless implementation. Balancing Act: Striking a Compromise Between Safety and Liberty In navigating the complex terrain of this debate, it is essential to strike a delicate balance between the government's responsibility to protect public safety and the individual's right to personal freedom. This balancing act requires careful consideration of the following factors: 1. Clearly Defined Objectives: The government should clearly articulate the specific objectives it aims to achieve by implementing speed limiters, such as reducing road fatalities, improving traffic flow, or enhancing environmental sustainability. 2. Proportionality and Necessity: Any restrictions on personal freedom must be proportionate to the intended benefits and necessary to achieve those objectives. The government should demonstrate that less intrusive measures, such as public education campaigns or targeted enforcement, have been exhausted before resorting to remote speed limiters. 3. Transparency and Accountability: The government should provide transparent information about the technology used, the data collected, and the safeguards in place to protect individual privacy. It should also establish mechanisms for accountability and oversight to prevent abuse of power. 4. Public Consultation and Consent: Before implementing such a far-reaching policy, the government should engage in extensive public consultation to gather feedback, address concerns, and build consensus. Ultimately, the success of any government initiative relies on the trust and cooperation of the citizens it serves. In conclusion, the debate surrounding government-controlled speed limiters is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides. To navigate this intricate landscape, a thoughtful and balanced approach is required, carefully considering the potential benefits and drawbacks, the technological implications, and the need to strike a delicate equilibrium between safety and liberty. Only through a collaborative effort, involving governments, industry stakeholders, and the public, can we find a solution that effectively addresses the challenges of road safety while respecting individual freedoms.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Get vaxed loser. I was making a point. It will never happen

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It'll happen, California is nuts, they have lots of crazy car laws

[–]MRTERMINATOR 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the question of why people choose to raise children instead of chickens has been a subject of contemplation for generations. While both endeavors involve nurturing and caretaking, the stark contrast between the two can often lead to bewildered inquiries. In this discourse, we shall delve into the myriad reasons why individuals opt to embark on the journey of parenthood, exploring the profound emotional, social, and existential factors that motivate this fundamental human desire. 1. **The Innate Drive to Procreate: Humans, like all living organisms, are driven by a primal instinct to reproduce and perpetuate their genetic lineage. This biological imperative is deeply ingrained in our DNA, propelling us to seek out mates and engage in procreative acts. The desire to have children is often an intrinsic part of our nature, a fundamental aspect of our being that transcends rational thought and conscious deliberation. 2. The Love and Connection: Children bring an unparalleled depth of love and connection into our lives. The bond between parent and child is one of the most profound and enduring relationships known to humankind. The unconditional love and unwavering support that parents provide their children foster a sense of belonging and security that is essential for healthy emotional development. Moreover, the reciprocal love and affection that children shower upon their parents creates a feedback loop of positive emotions, reinforcing the bonds of attachment and strengthening the familial unit. 3. The Legacy and Continuity: Through procreation, we leave behind a legacy that extends beyond our own mortality. Children carry our genetic heritage and embody the culmination of our life experiences, values, and aspirations. They serve as living testaments to our existence, ensuring that a part of us continues to exist long after we are gone. The desire to create a lasting legacy and contribute to the continuity of life is a powerful motivator for many individuals to have children. 4. The Meaning and Purpose: For many people, having children provides a sense of meaning and purpose in life. Raising children can be a transformative experience that challenges us to grow, learn, and evolve as individuals. It can bring a renewed sense of appreciation for the beauty and wonder of life and can help us to transcend our own selfish desires and focus on the well-being of others. For some, the act of parenting becomes a spiritual journey, a way of connecting with something greater than themselves and making a positive impact on the world. 5. The Joy and Fulfillment: Children bring immense joy and fulfillment into our lives. Their laughter, their smiles, and their infectious enthusiasm can light up even the darkest of days. Watching them grow and develop, learn new things, and experience the world for the first time can be an incredibly rewarding and fulfilling experience. The simple act of being a parent can bring a sense of deep contentment and happiness that is difficult to find elsewhere. While raising chickens may provide a sense of responsibility and routine, it lacks the profound emotional depth, the unconditional love, the legacy, the meaning, and the joy that come with raising children. It is these unique and irreplaceable aspects of parenthood that ultimately compel individuals to choose the path of raising children, even amidst the challenges and sacrifices that it entails.