Advocation vs Imposition
**WARNING** long rant coming, lol. But looking for an open conversation and possible friendly debate. Heavy on the word friendly. š¤
My husband showed me a video the other day of a news clip talking about the possibilities of newer smart cars having kill switches in them. Since there are cameras now in rear view mirrors and even some dashboards and screens. If the car ānoticesā you are distracted, āappearsā inebriated, or even ādetectsā through sensors of the possibilities of conspicuous ābadā behavior, it will automatically shut down. I thought INYFLā¦but there has already been a law passed by congress that is similar that may go into effect this year or next (link added)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2138#:~:text=This%20bill%20directs%20the%20Department,at%20the%20earliest%20practicable%20date.
This one is limited to inebriation, and only causes the vehicle to have limited to no capabilities. But we all know that those tests can produce false positives based on other foods and even mouth wash, which is why human intervention is added with a physical test by a police officer.
Anyway to the point, when does advocacy turn into imposition? The law was introduced by MADD. Iām all for safety no doubt, but Iām also for having the right to make decisions freely, and weāre taking those rights away. Example, even though Iām an advocate for pro life, I wouldnāt be apart of something that imposes a law that doesnāt allow women to make their own decisions, at the end of it all the individual person has to deal with their own consequences (good, bad, or indifferent). I advocate for the fetuses of women who are on the fence and provide information, Iām not about to go toe to toe with women who have their feet dug into a different idea than my own, nor force my idea onto anyone.
I want to add that yes, I understand that sometimes our decisions effect those around us, thatās also where I believe advocacy comes in, and I know some may think āwell advocating still leaves those few continuing to be reckless and putting others in danger.ā And that may in fact be the case; nonetheless it is still their free will and choice to make that decision.
Should laws be in place to keep order, absolutely, but ones that deal with consequences of choices, not prevention by stopping the choice. And I absolutely positively understand that lives can be at stake at the hand of others choices that are reckless and careless; and I still hold the idea that I donāt have the right to take their choices away.
What are your thoughts?
The views expressed in community are solely the opinions of participants, and do not reflect those of Peanut.
Learn more about our guidelines.
Technology like this just doesnāt really work how itās intended imo. Like we have a Subaru and it yells at you all the time when you are not doing anything wrong really.
My husband is part Korean and always jokes about it being racist because anytime he laughs or smiles big while driving, it yells at him to keep his eyes on the road.
āBadā behavior is so subjective so this would be very hard to determine and police. Iām not totally against it for things like intoxication. Just not sure the logistics would actually work
So, I have a lot to say on this, but my character limit is getting reached, so gimme a few minutes to type it out elsewhere and edit it down. š
Right now with our current state of unregulated capitalism and oligarchs kinda dictating these convos surrounding policy that should actually require educated scientists, philosophers and human rights experts Im not fully confident in any of these types of decisions. But I dont inherently oppose the idea of a kill switch in smart cars and I dont think it infringes upon our freedom, whats funny is that when laws were first created for people to wear seatbelts and not drive drunk you can still find clips of random joes being interviewed about it and yapping about personal freedom and the onslaught of ācommunismā š
lol idk my thoughts when I heard about all this were āfuck I sold my 2007 Corolla to my friendā
They can market it as a safety feature all theyād like, but all I see is a method to stop you from leaving one area and getting to another.
YALL know they plan to also record your voice through your CarPlay system?
This is an interesting question. I have heard a lot recently about driverless car technology. When cars become better drivers than humans, we may lose driving all together. The thought of that is crazy to me. So, I guess the thought of all this technology creeping into the car isnāt a surprise. This seems like baby steps to losing our ability to drive. š¤·āāļø
I like this bill more https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1137
My problem is; modern American cities, are built car-centric.
If we lose our access to cars we already own, your entire lifestyle is going to change. Youāll bike or you will walk, on roads that werenāt made with that at the forefront of anyoneās mind.
Infrastructure that exists currently are for vehicles that are following traffic laws & continuously flowing traffic. Tow trucks take forever as is, theyād take longer with extra kill switched vehicles in their way.
Take a look at your local sidewalks and tell me your town is building with pedestrians or cyclists in mind. They arenāt.
yeah i donāt like it, also car insurance companies would probably love drivers who have cars with these features and rates will go up a lot for people who donāt want to or canāt afford to buy these new cars.
Do you have any relatives or friends killed by drunk/distracted drivers?
I don't see where you see a threat to freedom with this bill. An intoxicated person shouldn't be allowed to get in a car, if there is no one around to prevent it, this could be it.
If your mouthwash is giving false positive readings, switch to one without alcohol, still the reading of the ones with alcohol dissipate after 15 minutes.
Like any new technology, it would have to go through improvements and won't be perfect from start.
The technology that I do find controversial is the one where the car decides who to save/kill, the passenger or the others.
Side note: Being pro life but being in favour of women making their own choices is being pro choice.
Download the Peanut App
