Zig
Well-Known Member
If it’s unable to be disabled it’s a feature not an option.Unrelated note to the above convo. Decided to look into this legislation to see if it's even likely to pass. The one we're talking about here is an addition to us Title 49 to add the following:
The European NCAP portion covers the inclusion of driver distraction/sleep aids that already exist in cars like ours. The alcohol monitoring system however is more interesting as even the DADSS has acknowledged their biggest constraints is public perception around privacy. No doubt about it being an invasive tracking technology, but I would caution against going hard line opposed to this technology. Congress will be blinded by "surveys" saying xx% of people love safety systems and will use that as justification. However we are not without options, those very same surveys also say things such as:
Source: https://fpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/FPF-Vehicle-Safety-Systems_March2024-FINAL.pdf
The biggest issue with our privacy isn't these new technologies that will come whether you want it or not. But the lack of regulation around the privacy side.
At the very least I would highly encourage everyone to reach out to their congress members to, if not block this entirely, use it as a justification to get some semblance of our privacy enshrined in the US code of law.
Why the requirement for sober detection (notice the assumption) when autonomous could care less, since they are mandating a technology that assumes control why not do the dew? Breathalyzer to unlock the door and then the automobile decides if it’s gonna be doing the driving? The piecemeal legislation is what makes basic skills a recall mainstay (as in can’t even backup without granny checking the surroundings and giving the all clear). Hogwash, absolutely no need for invasive regulation in the name of ‘we’re from the government and we’re here to help’. What problem are they fixing, the one where they think driving is a right and responsibility is a leisure ?
Sponsored
