791–800 of 954 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed the point, which is that many roads that used to be easily crossable roads are now 4-8 lane stroads. Yes, people didn't let their kids play near freeways in the past. But now a much larger number of streets are freeway-style roads.
Is this a California or Texas thing or something? The hyperbole in this thread is wild to see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know where you are but that is not my observation. More cars are going 15+ over the limit than I can ever remember. I drive on Chicago expressways a few times a year and that is especially insane. Everyone is already driving 15+ over the limit, and then there are those in Chargers, Challengers, or tuned BMW or Mercedes just weaving from lane to lane through the slightest gaps at 90+ No cops ever to be seen. I…
I don't know what happened, but since the pandemic it also feels like traffic enforcement is as lax as it's ever been here in Southern Ontario. And not just for speeding - I've seen more people run red lights in the last few years than in the 20 years before that.
I've never in my life seen anyone just full send it at a red light that's been red long enough the other side could have green but you see it in videos online so it must happen somewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OF COURSE NOT! It is impossible to implement a backdoor to a broadly-used encryption method for only specific criminal individuals - it is being implemented across the entire usage base. Adding a device to a specific criminal's vehicle for a limited time is highly specific. I absolutely oppose any general application, and am favorable towards the slippery slope argument. I'm only responding to the above comment which…
Is this merely adding a device to a criminal’s vehicle? What stops manufacturers from including speed limiters by default to make it easier to retrofit cars? Then what stops a switch from being flipped to enable it for all cars regardless of “criminal” status? Unlike breathalyzers, which had an economic barrier from reaching step 2, a software limiter has no economic barrier. A user controllable software limiter is a…
For the topic of the post, YES
The article was specifically about laws allowing a JUDGE to add a device to a specific convicted person's vehicle for a limited time.
OF COURSE there is the slippery-slope argument you describe very well.
The slippery slope danger is real, and I've stated that I oppose any motion down it.
But I also oppose posts which wrongly scream that we have already slid down it entirely when in fact the article is about taking a single limited step down the slope.
Descending every slippery slope is not inevitable. Falsely declaring that it's already done is at best a strawman argument.
Yet, evidently as soon as any surveillance topic comes up, hordes of HNers are happy to discard reading comprehension and act as if any hint that a step might be taken onto a slippery slope is a full endorsement of speedrunning down it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once upon a time crossing the street meant walking across a 20 foot road with the occasional small car going 20-25 mph. Now it's a 4-8 lane stroad full of 6,000 pound trucks that can't see anyone shorter than 5 feet past the hood going 50 mph. How far will you let your kid walk from home alone? Anyway my point is just that pedestrian deaths have gone up even as the number of miles walked and biked (_especially_ by ki…
>How far will you let your kid walk from home alone? Pretty damn far, actually, as the parent of two.
There is a point in time between infant and adulthood were you have to start letting them play unsupervised.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not much of a gear head but I believe that a car would perform much worse at 0-80mph if it couldn’t physically reach 120mph. You can artificially limit it and I think that’s what folks take with.
Volvo limit all their cars to 110mph and no-one seems to care. https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressrele...
Repeat offenders should not be allowed to drive. In the UK we have 12 points, and lose them for various offences. You get a fine, usually with the alternative of a course the first time. Speed again within 12 months and you get a fine and a minimum of three points (more if you are well above the limit). Speed again within four years and you will lose more points, and AFAIK pretty much guaranteed to be more than the m…
I agree with everything you’ve said. But, the sort of person who gets 12 points isn’t exactly the sort of person who you would expect to actually stop driving once they’ve got there. They’ve already been in court for speeding (or worse) at least twice, possibly 4 times. Maybe more if they were offered a speed awareness course the first time. If the goal is to stop them speeding then these devices might actually do it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It says in the article that people who lose their drivers license on account of speeding usually keep on driving anyway. I also feel like this is already the case in a lot of countries yet speeding still exists so I don't know if I agree that this is this simple solution no one is thinking of.
Fairly simple solution - catch someone driving with taken license - 364 days in jail.
"GPS-based speed limiters are too draconian. We should throw more people in prison."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will say this as a car guy, Virgina has an exceedingly bad reputation among gear heads. If you look at virtually any east coast rally, they will all route around Virginia to avoid driving through it. - VA is the only state to ban radar detectors - It has the lowest interstate speed limit in the country - It has some of the stiffest super speeder and reckless driving laws in the country. In most places if you go lik…
I looked it up, in Virginia the highest interstate speed limits are 70MPH. They're 65 in New York, (and in other states), so it's patently untrue that they have the lowest interstate speed limits. Source: https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed/speed-limit-laws
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The primary reason is political: people don't like the idea of the government living inside our cars 24x7, telling us how fast we're allowed to go. Even though most of us don't speed. Other examples of this phenomenon include: * A government mandated alcohol, cigarette, and BMI limit to prevent major health issues. * Government surveillance of our emails, messages, phone calls, bank accounts and internet activity. *…
People don't like the government telling you you can't leave the room you're in but if you break the law you go to jail. This is no different. As usual, anti-government people tend to miss the point completely and jump to extreme non-related situations. Having people who repeatedly break the speed limit have their cars adjusted so they can't do that but can still travel freely and drive anywhere they want is the topi…
Governments setting policies on cars is just the transportation version of global mass surveillance and control. It's not your car anymore, and it's not you who's driving. The computer is controlling everything, and it's not your computer, it's theirs. If they can set speed limits, they can easily do a lot more than that, it's literally one mandatory over the air software update away.
The only question is: are you gonna sacrifice your freedom for security? The so called "anti-government people" made their choice. It seems you have made yours. The consequences will be felt either way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's illegal to drive without insurance in Texas as well. It's also illegal to murder someone and yet people still do it from time to time. Stealing is illegal and yet stuff gets stolen. Drunk driving is illegal and yet people drive drunk. Turns out just making something illegal doesn't completely stop the action. When we build our societies where you need to drive to function it's not surprising people will continue…
What are the consequences? About 1% of cars do not have insurance in the UK at any given time. > When we build our societies where you need to drive to function it's not surprising people will continue to drive when they shouldn't. Maybe we should build our societies so people don't have to drive just to live. In cities, definitely. In rural areas?
The consequences for those they harm are pretty severe. Having your car destroyed can be lifechangily expensive for someone who is barely scraping by. Adding healthcare costs on top of that are pretty bad. Even with health insurance injuries from a car accident could get expensive fast, and add to the fact the single most expensive thing you owned just got destroyed while you're now unable to work. Too many people forget about the costs of driving they impose on others, thinking "that won't happen to me, I just won't hit anyone".
Driving without insurance is an incredibly reckless and selfish act.
> In cities, definitely. In rural areas?
Most people don't live in these "rural areas". And even then, I'd argue those "rural areas" could do quite a bit to reduce car dependence. Once again, how can these places solve transportation issues for those who can't afford insurance?