I agree. What's next? Controlling where, and when we can drive? The groups lobbying for this bill already say that they want mandatory, automatic, remotely-controllable speed restrictions on everyone's car - they will publicly tell you as much - from there, any further erosion of our liberties is just a software update away.
Do you really think that a government, in the height of an emergency, that can restrict where and when you can drive with just a simple OTA update, would resist that temptation?
And to the other commenter who was saying that Franklin didn't envision modern dangers like the automobile: life was far, far more dangerous in his time than ours. The 1/3 of annual traffic deaths caused by speeding - twelve thousand in a country of 340M - works out to the equivalent of thirty five deaths across the entire thirteen colonies in Franklin's middle age, not even a drop in the bucket of the many lives paid for other liberties at that time.
> The 1/3 of annual traffic deaths caused by speeding
I always question those numbers: which collisions/deaths would have still happened without speed being a factor? And was the speed even above the limit or e.g. "too fast for icy conditions" and limiters wouldn't have done anything.
Typically speed-related collisions require some other mistake/issue to occur, speed just exacerbates the consequences
The main thing I would call attention to is: There are other governments around the world who have similar technologies required on their cars, and who have distributed that technology without much negative impact to their people. I might, if I were a Japanese citizen, trust the Japanese government to handle a technology like this with the care and respect it deserves; but we are not Japan. Do you trust the current American government to do the same?
Those who supported these mass surveilience and control systems under, for example, Obama and Biden, may find themselves quiet when wondering whether they support them again under Trump. Yet, this is precisely, to the T, what our Founding Fathers had considered: that no government can be trusted to do things like this, or what the NSA does, or anything like it. Even if you approve of the regime today, your approval may quickly change, but the power you granted that previous regime does not.
Do you really think that a government, in the height of an emergency, that can restrict where and when you can drive with just a simple OTA update, would resist that temptation?
And to the other commenter who was saying that Franklin didn't envision modern dangers like the automobile: life was far, far more dangerous in his time than ours. The 1/3 of annual traffic deaths caused by speeding - twelve thousand in a country of 340M - works out to the equivalent of thirty five deaths across the entire thirteen colonies in Franklin's middle age, not even a drop in the bucket of the many lives paid for other liberties at that time.