We all know that Joe Biden and everyone around him wants nothing more than to control every single aspect of our lives, from cradle to grave.
A perfect example of this is a proposal out of the Department of Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for all new cars to be equipped with technology to make it difficult or impossible to drive faster than the speed limit.
While there are benefits to this type of technology, especially for new drivers, it should be up to the consumer, car manufacturers and the free markets whether or not they want that kind of equipment in their new car.
Again it is just another Biden administration attempt to control every aspect of our lives and this is way worse and far more intrusive than just demanding electric cars.
They say a picture can be worth a thousand words so here in one cartoon is exactly how Biden and his pals want to ruin your driving experience and what the future might look like:
Does that about sum it all up?
Here are the details of Buttigieg and the NTSB’s proposal on speed limiting technology:
NTSB Recommends All New Cars Be Equipped With Technology to Make Speeding Difficult or Impossible
In a recent development, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has proposed a measure that has sparked considerable debate.
The recommendation is for all new automobiles to be equipped with intelligent speed assistance (ISA) technology, a system designed to make speeding difficult or impossible.
This comes in the wake of a tragic accident in Las Vegas where nine individuals, including four children, were killed due to excessive speeding.
The NTSB’s proposal is not new; it echoes a similar recommendation made six years ago.
Despite the high incidence of speed-related fatalities—over 12,000 deaths in the U.S. last year alone—the adoption of this technology has been met with limited enthusiasm from auto manufacturers and is yet to be embraced by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The proposed ISA technology works by utilizing GPS and sign recognition to adapt the vehicle’s speed to the local limit.
Its approach is distinct from traditional speed limiters as it varies the maximum speed based on the location.
Jennifer Homendy, NTSB Chair, highlighted the Las Vegas accident as a harrowing example of the consequences of speeding.
She stated, “This crash is the latest in a long line of tragedies we’ve investigated where speeding and impairment led to catastrophe,” emphasizing that such incidents are preventable.
Despite the proposed benefits, the technology’s implementation remains uncertain.
The NTSB’s role is advisory, lacking regulatory or enforcement authority.
Their previous recommendation in 2017 to incentivize ISA technology was categorized as “non-urgent.”
Moreover, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s deliberation over including ISA in its new car assessment program is still ongoing, with no definitive timeline for a decision.
The auto industry’s response to ISA has been lukewarm.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing most domestic auto manufacturers, advocates for a focus on driver education and awareness rather than technology-based solutions.
This stance is challenged by advocates like David Zipper, a visiting fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, who argues that traditional approaches to speeding laws are insufficient, suggesting that car design should be a primary focus.
He remarked, “Nagging people to abide by speeding laws only works once in a while,” advocating for the implementation of ISA technology.
Isabella Chu, associate director of the data core at the Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences, sees the technology as a potentially effective interim solution while roads are redesigned for safety.
She noted the significant impact of speeding on road deaths, stating, “Speeding is implicated in about 30% of road deaths.”
Despite the current challenges and skepticism surrounding the widespread adoption of ISA technology, Chu remains hopeful about the future of automobile safety.
She believes that the rightness of an argument ultimately prevails, stating, “If you’re right on the merits, and what you’re arguing for is just, eventually you do win.”
This proposal, while aiming to enhance road safety, is viewed by some as an overreach of government intervention, potentially impinging on the freedom of private citizens and the auto industry.
It raises questions about the balance between public safety and individual liberties, and whether market demand and innovation should dictate such technological implementations, rather than government mandates.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/future-driving-looks-like-biden-gets-way-summed-single-cartoon
No comments:
Post a Comment