Thursday, August 5, 2021

Govern Me Harder Daddy

This made me LOL


This did not make me LOL


What. The. Fuck. 

How would that work exactly?

Sensors embedded within the vehicle's cabin will track the driver's eye moment and monitor signs of being distracted, impaired, or tired. Bloomberg notes this technology is similar to ones that police officers use when pulling over suspected drunk drivers.

Ah, a sensor that somehow manages to decide that you are drunk or tired. Shit, I am tired all the time and some people just look sleepy no matter what. Are they just not going to be allowed to drive? What does distracted mean, if I check out a girl while driving is my car going to scold me or just shut off? I assume that you can't remove or cover this monitor or the car won't start or go into drive so we will just have an electronic device monitoring us at all times while we drive. I am sure that won't be expanded into something far worse once they get a monitoring device in the car. It seems reasonable for me to be placed under electronic supervision since I have been driving for for over three decades and have never done so impaired as an adult. 

Another nanny state provision.

Another provision in the bill was to combat deaths of children accidentally left in hot cars called a "door logic" alert that reminds drivers to check the backseat when turning off the engine. 

Oh good. My youngest is in her teens but my car will nag me to check the backseat every time I turn off the engine because some people can't remember something like "don't leave your small child in the car", something I managed to remember for the decades where we always had a small child or two. I guess I am just exceptionally smart or something. I think I saw a different mention of this where it will become mandatory by 2027 so cars built just before that date are going to become very valuable. 

I am all in favor of optional safety devices. Our big 15 passenger Chevy van has a backup camera which is great because you can't see an adult standing behind you when you are backing up, much less a child. But mandating something that can prevent you from using your car if a monitor decides you are impaired, distracted or tired? That is a whole different matter and I can see it causing all sorts of problems for people, not to mention yet another enormous expense added onto the skyrocketing cost of vehicles. According to this Bloomberg article, "safety advocates" are pushing for this to go much further.

Life is a series of tradeoffs and "being safe" is not the only consideration. If we mandated that cars could only go a maximum of 5 MPH we would essentially eliminate traffic fatalities. Or if people could only eat pre-determined meals selected to minimize heart disease. On the other hand, we couldn't really live in a country like that and almost no one wants to. If I want to drive to Toledo, I always go on the fastest roads I can so I get there as rapidly as possible, even though that increases the relative danger of driving. If I wanted to I could go cross country on rural roads, driving 45 mph with minimal traffic. It would be "safer" but it would take me twice as long.

As usual, there will be an enormous cost and hassle burden added to all of us because a small percentage of the population are too fucking stupid to not get behind the wheel when drunk or a few parents are irresponsible and forget their little kids in the car. No one I know thinks that drunk driving isn't a huge problem but it is a problem that is mostly contained within a small percentage of the population. Ramp up the penalties for drunk driving, make a second offense a felony attempted murder charge, and perhaps people will stop driving drunk. At least that would focus on the people actually causing the problem instead of on the 99% of us who don't drive impaired. 

It is the same basic issue with gun control. Because our African population are unable to control their anger issues, it is harder for White people who have never committed a crime to purchase a gun. 

Every little additional regulation, rule and hassle increases the control they have over you. If they can put an electronic monitor to watch your eyes, why not a microphone that shuts down your car for 24 hours if you use "hate speech" in the car or yell at your spouse or listen to an unapproved podcast while driving. They just keep squeezing and squeezing. This "infrastructure" bill is chock full of pork and it is just the beginning.

8 comments:

  1. Hmmm, my '06 F-150 is looking better and better. It's already worth about 25% more than last year because of the chip shortage.

    Along the same lines, my brother has an '01 Freightliner sitting in his driveway that is valuable in the fact that it is pre electronic log and it is also pre DEF, meaning you don't have to add Diesel Exhaust Fluid for the truck to run. That is an extra value in itself. That and when my brother had it on the road, it would do 112 mph if you wanted it to. He got a couple of tickets for over 90 out west.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We bought an '05 Ram recently both because we needed a "new" truck and we wanted something with minimal electronics that we can do some work on ourselves.

      Delete
  2. "If we mandated that cars could only go a maximum of 5 MPH we would essentially eliminate traffic fatalities."

    As a selfish road cyclist, I'd like to see you up that built-in "speed limit" a little. Depending on wind conditions, I'll average something like 17.5 mph over substantial distance on my road bike. If the motorized traffic all went about that speed, I'd be riding out there in the traffic lanes where the pavement has a lot less debris on it, instead of cozying up to the fog line as I do now. Make it 14 or 15 mph and I'd be slowly overtaking everyone, as I now do the Amish buggies. It would be ... different.

    I'm joking, of course. Things are pretty tolerable now. "If it ain't broke ..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anytime I follow a buggy because I can't pass I want to slit my wrists after about 30 seconds of going 7 mph

      Delete
  3. Work has a couple of diesel vans that we use to do the 2 miles between the camp and the plant. Problem is they need to do regular ling hauls to get upto a certain rpm long enough it goes into regen mode. Otherwise the exhaust plugs off and they stop running.

    So twice a week the company pays someone to drive each van 40km down the road and back at 80km/hr to get them to regen.

    This is why all the electronics sucks if its not being driven the way the designers assumed.

    Did you see the article that the one company who is the big name in these anti-drunk driving sensor systems spend 900k in lobying and donations to a MD congress critter?


    Exile1981

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't see that, can you hook me up with a link? I assumed there was about a 100% probability that some corporate donor was probably behind this push, and since Debbie Dingle is yapping about it I assumed it was in her district.

      Delete
    2. Can't find where i read it but notthebee mentions the same bit about intoxalock spending 900k on lobbying for this.

      https://notthebee.com/article/did-you-know-bidens-new-infrastructure-bill-would-require-alcohol-monitors-to-be-installed-in-all-new-cars

      ..... ok found the original article. Its on washington free beacon.

      https://freebeacon.com/politics/infrastructure-bill-would-require-alcohol-monitors-for-all-new-cars/


      Exile1981

      Delete