this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
411 points (93.4% liked)

Technology

59381 readers
3977 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago (2 children)

While no one should be allowed to drunk-drive, I find it fundamentally fucked up for the government to have a device have to greenlight the use of your own vehicle. Even if they initially word it to be reactive, it would immediately implement the possibility. While it makes some sense for drunk driving, if it were available by default, it'd only be a matter of semmantics and suddenly your car is a large paper weight simply because you didn't renew the registration before-hand.

[–] door_hater@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't the government already greenlight vehicle usage with the drivers license?

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You can drive without one. If there is an emergency you can escape a fucking forest fire for example.

“Man dies after forest fire engulfs home; couldn’t outrun flames and car was remotely disabled due to overdue registration; ‘Hand were tied’ says DMV”

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 7 points 11 months ago

Or simply just driving on private property... You can drive all you want on private property with the owners permission.

"State disables car that was never driven on public road" is pretty bad from a personal freedom perspective.

[–] door_hater@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Fair enough, didn't want to appear pro stupid car lock mechanism. I think it would be beneficial to to limit drunk driving as much as possible, but but not in a way that overcomplicates driving and makes it more dangerous.

Had to laugh at 'Hands were tied' though lol, sounds too realistic

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you're only using your car on public roads it technically doesn't matter anyway(s). Public roads and the jurisdiction of public traffic laws are absolute and you can be stopped or dealt with pretty easily since thats the language of everything ("public roads")

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Oh, I fully agree the government should have full control of public roads.

They just shouldn't control my vehicle unless I've already demonstrated I cannot. It should never be a default-available thing for them to outright disable a large life investment that can quickly become a life saving device in any number of situations.

What if I am drunk camping and I'm the only adult driving a bunch of kids away from a sudden forest fire? Is the vehicle going to turn off? What if my panicked driving comes across as drunk and I'm actually sober? This entire concept is nothing but a bad idea.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm saying its literally set up such that they dont care what you want or prefer with reference to YOUR car, you feel me?

A.You have to go on public roads, B. public roads and everything in them are controlled by traffic laws/the government

A+B =

C. you+your car will be controlled by same

Edit: the points i made are ok but a little salty, please disregard tone :(