So, despite drug use and a history of speeding by the at-fault driver, the rest of us must suffer. Got it.
Preventing these deaths by eliminating the ability to drive at unsafe speeds is not suffering.
[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding...
Yes. The bureaucracy knows and loves us, {human unit #78,042,196} but most of all knows what's best for us. Compliance is mandatory. {human unit #78,042,196} has been docked 12 freedom units for your outburst. Please report to Central Brainwashing tomorrow between 10:30am and 10:45am at Brutalism Plaza.
It's not the place of the government to put limits like these on devices just because they want to avoid having to commit to behavioral change through enforcement and penalty.
> Increase active enforcement; make penalties more severe; and treat repeat offenses like DUI.
But not limit these "devices". In general I find interference with my person MORE invasive than interference with the capacity of my devices.
I mean... That kind of _is_ half of their jobs, isn't it?
Dictionary definition of the word "regulation": Rules made by a government or other authority in _order to control the way something is done_ or the way people behave.
Note: Not that I necessarily agree with a gps based speed limit facility. My car displays posted speed limits on the dashboard, and it frequently shows the wrong one, from a nearby surface road or who knows what -- a nice feature but more than occasionally wrong. I do think things like top speed governors make sense though (eg. no need for street legal vehicles to go over 100mph public roads instance).
Speed is constantly and accurately measured. Police love to say accidents are speed related, because that is always technically true; and it lends vain credibility to the most lucrative traffic law.
We have a similar problem with scheduled substances.
Personally, I'm inclined towards solutions that many would consider very harsh towards the offender. But that's softened over time as I've become more aware human's limited ability to dispense true justice. E.g., wrongful convictions in death-penalty cases.
What is your reasoning? The literature suggests that harsher penalties do not significantly affect the rate or severity of offenses. Even if you feel that those punishments are just, long jail sentences are expensive to society.
Probably the most straightforward thing is to burden people who do care about rules, eg. not only take away their license, but make it illegal to sell or furnish a car to anyone listed on an online "no drive" list.
Just to be clear, I'm talking about my instinctive gut-reaction to the issue, not my settled view. I'm not 100% sure where that instinct comes from; probably somewhere in the depths of my psyche and/or world view.