All Cars Should Be Tracked and Locked

[Galloism]

I say we ban all human operated cars and require cars to be automated to use the roadway. Once it's a national priority, all the defects and problems will be fixed.

Just like every other national priority that is going so well.

This is IM's modus operandi. Anytime you point out that his plan is about as practical as a spaceship made out of tongue depressors and duct tape, he handwaves it away that it'll just somehow be fixed or made better.

[Urran]

Just like every other national priority that is going so well.

Shhh just don't look at the war on drugs

[Thermodolia]

Just like every other national priority that is going so well.

This is IM's modus operandi. Anytime you point out that his plan is about as practical as a spaceship made out of tongue depressors and duct tape, he handwaves it away that it'll just somehow be fixed or made better.

Magic and fairy dust that's how.

[The Two Jerseys]

I'm still waiting for Kefka to explain exactly how actively tracking the movements of people without obtaining a search warrant isn't considered an unreasonable search.

Or how we're supposed to have complete faith in a speed monitoring system using the same GPS system that often can't tell whether a car is driving on an urban freeway or on the surface street running along the freeway.

Or how allowing a machine to enforce laws without having any human oversight is even legal, much less a good thing.

[Thermodolia]

Shhh just don't look at the war on drugs

[Gauthier]

Or how allowing a machine to enforce laws without having any human oversight is even legal, much less a good thing.

How would like Skynet to be your chauffeur?

[Thermodolia]

I'm still waiting for Kefka to explain exactly how actively tracking the movements of people without obtaining a search warrant isn't considered an unreasonable search.

Or how we're supposed to have complete faith in a speed monitoring system using the same GPS system that often can't tell whether a car is driving on an urban freeway or on the surface street running along the freeway.

Or how allowing a machine to enforce laws without having any human oversight is even legal, much less a good thing.

By stuffing the Supreme Court with Justices that have the same views as themselves and then having the Justices ruling that the 4th amendment didn't mean this.

[Urran]

Just like every other national priority that is going so well.

This is IM's modus operandi. Anytime you point out that his plan is about as practical as a spaceship made out of tongue depressors and duct tape, he handwaves it away that it'll just somehow be fixed or made better.

Without any consideration to time, labor, or money.


It's like if he said he wanted all power plants to be Nuclear Fusion plants. Just sign it into law and magically we'll perfect the technology overnight!

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Every year, tens of thousands of people are killed by car accidents largely caused by irresponsible driving. This includes driving under the influence of alcohol and speeding.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/gener ... lity-facts

I propose the following changes:

1. The government mandate that all cars be installed with mandatory tracking devices. This allows the police to monitor the positions of all cars and their speed at any given time. This is to deter speeding and ease the administration of speeding regulation for the public good.

2. Cars should also have a mandatory auto-lock system that requires a breath-analyzer to unlock and activate. This way, if you are drunk, you can't start the car. The car cannot be started except by a sober party and it is a criminal offence to try to game the system. The policy could save tens of thousands of lives potentially.

I believe these reforms will go a long way in crime prevention, car accident prevention, and improving general public safety as well as the efficacy of the law enforcement system.

What do you think?

In a range between 0 and "I'm fucking staring at the ceiling doped up with LSD and can see colors" how high are you?

Not only would this be an enormous expense. The security risks are not worth it. Plus, how do you prevent false positives on a breathalizer to prevent people being locked out of their cars by mistake? What if someone just gargled their mouth with Listerine which contains alcohol?

[Thermodolia]

Or how allowing a machine to enforce laws without having any human oversight is even legal, much less a good thing.

How would like Skynet to be your chauffeur?

I generally like to arrive alive, not charred and radiated thank you very much.

[Thermodolia]

Every year, tens of thousands of people are killed by car accidents largely caused by irresponsible driving. This includes driving under the influence of alcohol and speeding.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/gener ... lity-facts

I propose the following changes:

1. The government mandate that all cars be installed with mandatory tracking devices. This allows the police to monitor the positions of all cars and their speed at any given time. This is to deter speeding and ease the administration of speeding regulation for the public good.

2. Cars should also have a mandatory auto-lock system that requires a breath-analyzer to unlock and activate. This way, if you are drunk, you can't start the car. The car cannot be started except by a sober party and it is a criminal offence to try to game the system. The policy could save tens of thousands of lives potentially.

I believe these reforms will go a long way in crime prevention, car accident prevention, and improving general public safety as well as the efficacy of the law enforcement system.

What do you think?

In a range between 0 and "I'm fucking staring at the ceiling doped up with LSD and can see colors" how high are you?

Sadly They are sober.

[The Two Jerseys]

Or how allowing a machine to enforce laws without having any human oversight is even legal, much less a good thing.

How would like Skynet to be your chauffeur?

It's probably a nicer way to get to the concentration camp than a cattle train is.

I'm still waiting for Kefka to explain exactly how actively tracking the movements of people without obtaining a search warrant isn't considered an unreasonable search.

Or how we're supposed to have complete faith in a speed monitoring system using the same GPS system that often can't tell whether a car is driving on an urban freeway or on the surface street running along the freeway.

Or how allowing a machine to enforce laws without having any human oversight is even legal, much less a good thing.

By stuffing the Supreme Court with Justices that have the same views as themselves and then having the Justices ruling that the 4th amendment didn't mean this.

Fortunately, I don't think there are 72 people out there who are that crazy.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm still waiting for Kefka to explain exactly how actively tracking the movements of people without obtaining a search warrant isn't considered an unreasonable search.

Or how we're supposed to have complete faith in a speed monitoring system using the same GPS system that often can't tell whether a car is driving on an urban freeway or on the surface street running along the freeway.

Or how allowing a machine to enforce laws without having any human oversight is even legal, much less a good thing.

Frankly, I am also very skeptical of the breathalizer thing. Considering that false positives can happen.

[Thermodolia]

I'm still waiting for Kefka to explain exactly how actively tracking the movements of people without obtaining a search warrant isn't considered an unreasonable search.

Or how we're supposed to have complete faith in a speed monitoring system using the same GPS system that often can't tell whether a car is driving on an urban freeway or on the surface street running along the freeway.

Or how allowing a machine to enforce laws without having any human oversight is even legal, much less a good thing.

Frankly, I am also very skeptical of the breathalizer thing. Considering that false positives can happen.

Well that and the fact that Galloism pointed out, that some of these breathalizer things stop the car mid-drive.

[The Two Jerseys]

Frankly, I am also very skeptical of the breathalizer thing. Considering that false positives can happen.

Well that and the fact that Galloism pointed out, that some of these breathalizer things stop the car mid-drive.

That will totally prevent people from getting killed!

[Immoren]

Or how allowing a machine to enforce laws without having any human oversight is even legal, much less a good thing.

How would like Skynet to be your chauffeur?

No. But I wouldn't mind a BOLO cybertank. *nod*

[Thermodolia]

Well that and the fact that Galloism pointed out, that some of these breathalizer things stop the car mid-drive.

That will totally prevent people from getting killed!

But as usual IM disregards it

[The Two Jerseys]

That will totally prevent people from getting killed!

But as usual IM disregards it

Or probably writes them off as collateral damage in the fight for The Greater Good.

[Senkaku]

Tracking, no. Ignition interlocks, yes.

All ready have those, all though they are only for persons convicted of vehicular homicide while under the influence.

I was suggesting they would be good for the general public, since they would prevent those first offenses that kill people and currently only then lead to the implementation of this technology. It's not that hard to breath into a thingy before you get going, and it would save a lot of lives.

[Austraud]

Every year, tens of thousands of people are killed by car accidents largely caused by irresponsible driving. This includes driving under the influence of alcohol and speeding.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/gener ... lity-facts

I propose the following changes:

1. The government mandate that all cars be installed with mandatory tracking devices. This allows the police to monitor the positions of all cars and their speed at any given time. This is to deter speeding and ease the administration of speeding regulation for the public good.

2. Cars should also have a mandatory auto-lock system that requires a breath-analyzer to unlock and activate. This way, if you are drunk, you can't start the car. The car cannot be started except by a sober party and it is a criminal offence to try to game the system. The policy could save tens of thousands of lives potentially.

I believe these reforms will go a long way in crime prevention, car accident prevention, and improving general public safety as well as the efficacy of the law enforcement system.

What do you think?

Although the logic behind this proposition is purposeful for the deterrence of drunk-driving, I find that I cannot trust the enactment of it for liberal nations, at least. Having this "mandate that all cars be installed with mandatory tracking devices" is, for me, too restrictive and promotes an Orwellian authoritativeness. Please understand that I do not think it is a strategic way of helping the government with issues like this because it is, and as such, an idea like this cannot be dismissed. However, I do not think it is the best solution due to the fact that it ignores the right to individual and vehicular autonomy of the main stakeholder here, which are the drivers. Instead, why not make the driving tests more difficult in order to ensure that those who are given a license will not risk such adverse events, i.e. drunk-driving? This way, societal mobility will not be deterred by drunk-driven accidents that cause slower traffic. Also, we protect not just the drivers, but the passengers with them. And by extension, we can ensure the trust of the citizens to their respective governments by allowing them to practise their rights and privileges better. This counter-proposal is not meant to serve an elitist propaganda that may be seen through the augmented driving examinations. Instead, it is done to promote better security and a more fluid transportation for everyone. This is a more concretised way to protect the cases you have laid down in your penultimate statement.

[Dakini]

All ready have those, all though they are only for persons convicted of vehicular homicide while under the influence.

I was suggesting they would be good for the general public, since they would prevent those first offenses that kill people and currently only then lead to the implementation of this technology. It's not that hard to breath into a thingy before you get going, and it would save a lot of lives.

Except that distracted driving kills more people than drunk driving and there's little more distracting than having to breathe into your car because it's otherwise going to stop in the middle of the highway.

[Xeng He]

The auto-lock I like, the tracking system could be useful but I think prevention's a bigger deal than deterrence. We should install either AI or something to basically link the car to a human with excellent safe-driving skills to alter the course of cars as they're on the verge of crashing.

[Senkaku]

I was suggesting they would be good for the general public, since they would prevent those first offenses that kill people and currently only then lead to the implementation of this technology. It's not that hard to breath into a thingy before you get going, and it would save a lot of lives.

Except that distracted driving kills more people than drunk driving and there's little more distracting than having to breathe into your car because it's otherwise going to stop in the middle of the highway.

Perhaps it's simply because I am extremely unfamiliar with the technology- I was under the impression you had to breath into them to start them, and then you were good? Even if not, breathing into a thing isn't terribly difficult to do.

[Xeng He]

Except reports indicate interlock devices actually cause accidents, so rolling out required devices that cause accidents on all vehicles is a pretty risky idea.

Do you happen to know the reasoning behind their issues, or have a link to the sources discussing said issues?

EDIT: Reading into the thread a little more, there's been some suggestion that the problem is that they activate spontaneously or something like that? Easy solution is to use breathalyzers that affect your ability to unlock the car doors, instead of to start the car. A sort of "iMask", perhaps.

[Infected Mushroom]

Every year, tens of thousands of people are killed by car accidents largely caused by irresponsible driving. This includes driving under the influence of alcohol and speeding.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/gener ... lity-facts

I propose the following changes:

1. The government mandate that all cars be installed with mandatory tracking devices. This allows the police to monitor the positions of all cars and their speed at any given time. This is to deter speeding and ease the administration of speeding regulation for the public good.

2. Cars should also have a mandatory auto-lock system that requires a breath-analyzer to unlock and activate. This way, if you are drunk, you can't start the car. The car cannot be started except by a sober party and it is a criminal offence to try to game the system. The policy could save tens of thousands of lives potentially.

I believe these reforms will go a long way in crime prevention, car accident prevention, and improving general public safety as well as the efficacy of the law enforcement system.

What do you think?

Although the logic behind this proposition is purposeful for the deterrence of drunk-driving, I find that I cannot trust the enactment of it for liberal nations, at least. Having this "mandate that all cars be installed with mandatory tracking devices" is, for me, too restrictive and promotes an Orwellian authoritativeness. Please understand that I do not think it is a strategic way of helping the government with issues like this because it is, and as such, an idea like this cannot be dismissed. However, I do not think it is the best solution due to the fact that it ignores the right to individual and vehicular autonomy of the main stakeholder here, which are the drivers. Instead, why not make the driving tests more difficult in order to ensure that those who are given a license will not risk such adverse events, i.e. drunk-driving? This way, societal mobility will not be deterred by drunk-driven accidents that cause slower traffic. Also, we protect not just the drivers, but the passengers with them. And by extension, we can ensure the trust of the citizens to their respective governments by allowing them to practise their rights and privileges better. This counter-proposal is not meant to serve an elitist propaganda that may be seen through the augmented driving examinations. Instead, it is done to promote better security and a more fluid transportation for everyone. This is a more concretised way to protect the cases you have laid down in your penultimate statement.

An interesting idea. How difficult would you make the tests? As difficult as Japanese university entrance examinations?