I completely understand this position. However, there was a time seat belts, airbags, laminated safety glass and energy absorbing designs (frames, bumpers, interior structure) were also considered to be over reach. They violated personal liberty, increased purchase costs and reduced aesthetics. Few would now argue that these items do not increase safety in a very meaningful way. The question becomes when do additional safety features cross into regulatory over reach. This is a very fuzzy line that is constantly moving.
I hear you - and I understand that a lot of people will welcome these new features. But there are two very significant differences between these new 'safety' features and those that you describe:
(1) All the safety features you mention are passive systems, many of these new ones are active systems; autonomous braking, for example, is fundamentally different than a seatbelt or airbag.
(2) These new features will soon have the ability to incapacitate your vehicle.
A month ago I was running on a snowy trail. I was wearing a baseball cap and I was looking down at my footing. A heavy branch was down over the trail and I ran right into it at a pretty good clip - right on the eyebrow. Five miles later I was back at the car, and my eye was swollen nearly shut. Beginning in 2027, drowsy driver software will have the capability to prevent vehicle operation if it detects that you are drowsy or drunk. My closed eye could well have prevented the operation of my vehicle. It was 14 degrees Fahrenheit, I had no cell reception, and I was at a trailhead 12 miles from home, and government-mandated software might prevent me from driving home?
That is just one scenario. There are others. Think about how many glitches we have heard about with the Grenadier and with other new vehicles. A simple glitch might leave you or a loved one stranded somewhere. Is that "safe"?
Maybe this evolves, and government gains control over these systems in the name of safety, and shuts down everyone's car during a snowstorm, or during the next pandemic. Maybe your name gets confused with someone else who is overdue on their registration, and your car is immobilized. Maybe a local cop or sheriff decides to immobilize their scorned lover's car. This kind of power is not necessary, and should not exist. Power tends to get used.
The reality is this: drowsy driver detection with the capability of immobilizing a vehicle is a way to control everyone - both the law-breakers and the law-abiding. It is policy-making catering to the lowest common denominator, and it is either lazy policy-making or worse - it is an excuse to pursue a dangerous political agenda.
There are - of course - many other ways to make the roads safer without infringing on the liberties of law-abiding citizens, and opening them up to abuse, making them vulnerable to hackers and other miscreants, or expanding government control over our lives.
1- more rigorous driver-education and licensing
2- more enforcement of distracted driver violations
3- more stringent penalties for violations
4- on-board breathalyzers for first-time violators of drunk-driving laws
5- your ideas here
It is likely that you and I have had different life experiences, and as a consequence, we will see all kinds of things differently. My experiences in the service, and in subsequent employment, has forever shaped my thinking on these topics.
![[ Adam ]](https://ineosforum-data.community.forum/avatars/m/9046/9046040.jpg?1705937698){kind=avatar}
