'Hard to argue against': mandatory speed limiters come to the EU and NI

theguardian.com

2 points·beardyw··6 comments

Seems like a long overdue road safety measure that will hopefully save a great number of lives.

I'm generally not in favor of increasing tracking of people (which is not necessary for this feature, but realistically, will be implemented anyways). However, avoiding a lot of injury and death is at least a very good counterbalance.

IMO the problem isn't the feature per se, but how it combines with an overall lack of ownership in a purchased product.

The contrast is between individuals being empowered with tools--dare I say capital--versus being squeezed by manufacturers-turned-rentiers.

The usual extremely lousy journalism: not a word (I see) about the elephant-in-the-room unconsidered big questions: how is it implemented?

If automated speed limiters imply tracking, the good side of the population will say "you can be disposed of".

I'm guessing satnavs phone home with your intentions/route. If so, wouldn't that be most people already?

Yes, that would be what /most/ people very probably already do - and "people" are not what you take for a good example.

Now for the /right/ people: they do not let dubious third parties track their lives and activities, so a mandated system is supposed to avoid all unacceptable clauses. But given that the norms are often not established by the right ones, that the unacceptable is avoided is far from granted.

The problem is not "what most people do", but "what sensible people would not do".

And when journalism tackles information oblivious of the big questions behind it, it is lousy.

Scrap it, bad idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com