Posted: 12/14/2008 10:17:41 AM EDT
|
Okay, so after the socialists get done ramming through all sorts of "reasonable and necessary gun control" for the children and all that, what's next?
What kills FAR, FAR more people, and costs far more in medical care, property damage, investigative resources, and court costs every year than gun violence? Automobile accidents, of course! And so, why not THIS scenario? - The technology already exists to put a microcomputer sized "black box" on all newly made vehicles. - They could put a USB port on the dashboard, allowing speed and a lot of other data to be retrieved instantly, probably going back for weeks if not months. - Pulled over by the police? The officer just plugs their device into your dashboard, and retrieves your exact speed at the time they stopped you or observed you speeding. Here's your ticket. Have a nice day! Want to try and argue THAT with a judge? Good luck. - Insurance companies would love it too. This would be an insurance executive's wet dream! Sign here for your mandatory car insurance. Make sure you read that fine print which states that if you are in a wreck and were speeding at the time, the policy IS INVALIDATED and the insurance company is OFF THE HOOK. Got into an accident? Filing a claim? Sure, no problem. Let's just plug in the device and...WHOOPS! Sorry, Sir! You were going ten miles an hour over the speed limit at the time of the accident! YOU pay your damages YOURSELF, and you are liable for the other guy's damages too if you were at fault. Have a nice day. So can anybody tell me why this wouldn't be a logical next step for the socialists in their bid to create "utopia," after they strangle the Second Amendment? Insurance companies have tremendous political power in this country. If the idea ever gets legs, they could mobilize huge support behind it. (I still believe that the reason the Democrats lost Congress in 1994 wasn't so much because of an AWB backlash, as it was the power of insurance companies that were scared green by Clinton's proposed universal health care plan). Remember, it's "for the children." |
| Such is all ready being planned for On Board Diagnostics III. Officials will be able to monitor exhaust emissions from your car via either road readers or satellite. I see no reason why they could not easily monitor speed limits. Tack on a high insurance rate for cars that don't have the feature and there you go. |
|
This won't happen. The antis still drive cars. The ignorant drive cars.
If the Brady bunch owned a nice collection of firearms and regularly went shooting, do you think they'd hold the same stance? (well probably since they're a bunch of fuckwads, but you get the point) People fear what they don't understand. |
|
Quoted:
You have no constitutional RIGHT to drive! In fact you have NO RIGHT to drive at all. My idea of government (which I realize is outdated now) has always been this: - The government is strictly limited to the powers which are expressly granted to it by the Constitution. - ALL OTHER POWER belongs to the people. - "The People" means you and me. I like it when the people are the ones telling government what it can and can not do, and not the other way around. As to hondaciv's observation, I have no problem with people being made to face the consequences of their own actions, as chosen by them using their own freedom. If they choose to speed and get in a wreck, I have no problem with them paying for it. I also think motorcycle riders should be free not to wear helmets if they choose not to, but on the other hand, if they have an accident and require expensive medical care due to injuries that could have been prevented by a helmet, then I don't think those costs should be passed on to other people. They should have to pay it themselves. I guess my own feelings about this kind of technology are somewhat ambivalent, and I don't really know where I would stand on this issue if push came to shove. That's mainly why I posted it here - I would like to hear some thoughts from others. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have no constitutional RIGHT to drive! In fact you have NO RIGHT to drive at all. I sincerely hope this is sarcasm. No, legally he is correct. You really do not have a "right" to drive private motor vehicles on publicly owned and maintained roads. It is a considered a privilege in a legal sense, and it can be revoked too. I believe there is a lot of case law on that issue on the books. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have no constitutional RIGHT to drive! In fact you have NO RIGHT to drive at all. I sincerely hope this is sarcasm. No, legally he is correct. You really do not have a "right" to drive private motor vehicles on publicly owned and maintained roads. It is a considered a privilege in a legal sense, and it can be revoked too. I believe there is a lot of case law on that issue on the books. If it can be revoked then taxes to support those roads should be voluntary. |
I expect to see engine rev limiters/top speed limiters before I die. To save gas, and reduce carbon on teh earf. Mods will be illegal, except for professional competitive track use, and for 'authorized' persons.
Non-compliant, non-excepted vehicles subject to confiscation. Plus fines, lic. revocation, etc. 
|
|
We don't have to drive slow enough as it is?
How about regulations on fast food. Or, and I know this one is a stretch... but drugs. The kind "on the streets". Talk about save the children. How about actually taking part in the war on drugs... because right now it's not even a standoff. We're just spectators. |
