Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There is that, but in this case it is not particularly authoritarian.

- There is already a whole lot of regulations on what makes a car street legal, including rules that can be quite unpopular among drivers and yet important on a large scale. In particular those related to the environment.

- Limiting the top speed of cars does not imply surveillance or advanced GPS-based systems. The idea is just to make it so that the car can't exceed speeds well beyond the highest speed limit in the country.

- The gouvernement is already telling you how fast you are allowed to go, and will watch you for it.

A 100mph limitation will only affect you if you are speeding, if you don't speed, nothing will change for you. There are some exceptions and special cases: race cars, imports, etc... but these are just details that can be dealt with, as it done today on other aspects.






I think you're logically correct. It's the feeling such a policy elicits which makes it untenable. I agree with your points conceptually, but the moment I would have to install a government speed limiter on my car is the moment I vote for someone else. It feels invasive, and I don't like feeling like the paternal hand of the government is all the way up my ass, controlling my gas pedal.

I'm sure the "chronic shit driver, bad enough to have a judge mandate a speed limiter" vote is a big block that politicians will be lining up to appease. Just like the "chronic drunk driver, bad enough to have a judge mandate an interlock" bloc.

It's not about being paternalistic. It's about protecting others, not you.



Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: