Policing your car

Discussions that deal with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: How should one live? What is right (or wrong) to do? What is the best way for humans to live?

Policing your car

Postby SciameriKen on July 24th, 2017, 12:41 am 

Just a thought on future technology.

So currently there is growing fear by motorist being pulled over by police and the police when pulling over a motorist. It might be possible to significantly reduce the need for police in this position. Cars already have devices that can monitor car speed, administer breathalyzers, determine if a tail light is missing, etc. It would not be too much of a leap to connect such cars to the DMV and court system..

Imagine you are breaking the speed limit by 10MPH or more... a sound emerges -- "You have 15 seconds to reduce your speed or you will be issued a citation". or -- "your breath registers above the legal limit... please find alternate means of transportation"

Would such monitoring make the world safer? Might it reduce officer related shootings? Could it stop reduce drunk driving deaths? Or has big brother come alive????
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Policing your car

Postby zetreque on July 24th, 2017, 1:59 am 

Looks at you funny. haha. There is no way on Earth I would be for something like that. As it is I have been hearing more and more people talk about how they want an older car with less electronics. Or maybe that's just the crowd I'm around. The problem I see is that while there might actually be some communities that would pass legislation requiring this, the far majority in the country wouldn't and when it comes to automobiles that travel spanning the whole country, there needs to be agreed upon standards.

California has usually been the most aggressive with things like fuel economy which if something passes in CA, they have such a huge market power for cars that the rest of the country usually has to deal with whatever California passes.

Also how do you bring up the older cars to the new technology requirement? Older cars (that people are seeking more often now because of this) are exempt from newer laws. I doubt you will be seeing any classics that come out in full force for hot august nights installing these speed limit breathalyzers. It seems anti-american.

I watched a video the other day where things actually seem to be going the opposite direction when it comes to cars. Research is showing that more freedom or less traffic laws actually help reduce speeds. The reasoning is that when people have to pay attention in a lawless situation they tend to slow down. When people know that laws will protect them, they just assume everything is fine and dandy and drive really fast assuming others will be paying attention to the law. Something like that.

Also building more lanes, more parking, more auto infrastructure actually makes congestion worse not better! This has been proven in Texas where they built some super highway with 10 lanes? and congestion ultimately got worse.

Once again it's a culture problem, not a law enforcement problem.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3661
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Policing your car

Postby wolfhnd on July 24th, 2017, 3:55 am 

All you need is a GPS unit that you must carry to drive. The problem is the people that need regulations would hack, cheat or ignore the law.

I would be fine with such a system as I never have the desire to violate traffic regulations. In fact I'm ok with privacy violations of all kinds because I don't break any laws, the only laws I'm likely to break are those that are currently being formulated to limit free speech which is what protects freedom not privacy.

People have a strange view of privacy. The purpose of privacy is to avoid social censure and the abuse of power. The problem is that secrecy is the root of abuse in civilized constitutionally "liberal" societies. The secret police are a hallmark of authoritarian governments that hypocritically proclaim they are constitutional democracies. It is a vicious circle where the ability of criminals to hide behind constitutional privacy rights increases the need for undercover policing and authoritarian laws. It is the ability of authorities to protect their privacy that enables abuse. That includes unnecessary secrecy and lack of transparency. The need for body cameras on police officers illustrates how privacy enables criminality and the abuse of power. The need for whistleblower laws illustrates how the privacy "secrecy" of higher level authorities enables the abuse of power. There is even some evidence that the level of an administrations hostility towards whistleblowers is directly proportional to it's corruption.

There is little need for privacy in a liberal society in which legal and societal censure is limited. Tolerance is a property of liberalism not the authoritarian neo Marxist movements such as political correctness. That does not mean that social censure is not an important tool in addressing social problems but that making that censure institution unavoidably leads to authoritarian abuse.

Privacy does not protect freedom. True freedom is a product of limiting the unnecessary restrictions on how we interact as social animals. The important aspects of privacy are unrelated to secrecy. The privacy to be free from interference does not require secrecy. The protection of private property does not require secrecy. The protection of our freedom from harassment or our private space does not require secrecy. Freedom of speech is not protected by privacy. Freedom of movement is not protected by privacy. Other freedoms concerning sexual relationships, recreational drugs and other forms of commerce are social and by definition not private.

Privacy protects the abuse of power, the criminal, the deviant such as child molesters, the liars and cheaters, the sociopathic, but does not protect the rights of civilized citizens.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4688
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Policing your car

Postby zetreque on July 24th, 2017, 4:07 am 

I don't trust other people so I have a major problem giving up my privacy. Especially these days corporations take advantage of snooping on our privacy to manipulate us in every way possible.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3661
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Policing your car

Postby zetreque on July 24th, 2017, 4:10 am 

Think about it. Once they track your speed and how or where you stop, they will place billboards and adverts there as just one example.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3661
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Policing your car

Postby wolfhnd on July 24th, 2017, 5:02 am 

zetreque » Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:10 am wrote:Think about it. Once they track your speed and how or where you stop, they will place billboards and adverts there as just one example.


You use a smart phone?

As best I can tell Google knows where I'm at physically and on the internet at just about any moment. They target you with ads for nearby stores and what you have been doing on the internet. I could stop them but the ads are easy to ignore.

I delete 200 targeted emails every day in about three minutes. I find it interesting but my first reaction is thank god they are not cutting down forest to use physical mail. Advertisement has virtually no effect on my purchasing decisions and can not understand why so much capital is wasted on it.

My wife covers the built-in cameras on all her devices but I couldn't careless who is watching an ugly old man like me. She also complains when I run around nude in the house because the neighbors may see me and I tell her that is their problem.

The people you can't trust are the ones who need privacy. They are hiding something.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4688
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Policing your car

Postby zetreque on July 24th, 2017, 1:41 pm 

Actually I don't use a smart phone and refuse to give these anti net neutrality companies any more money than I have to. Every little bit of privacy they invade is one step closer to them using their psychologists to learn how to manipulate us even more. Yes there is another side to it but that's the point I'm making here.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3661
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Policing your car

Postby Dave_Oblad on July 24th, 2017, 4:51 pm 

People are stupid.. face it.

Here in SoCal, they dropped the speed limit to 55mph to be more gas energy efficient. This immediately led to major traffic jams, as each person uses more of a freeway for a longer period for the same trip. It was a disaster and the limit was set back to 65mph and the jams cleared up.

Then we have Car Pool lanes.. that are worthless unless there is a major speed differential between the Car Pool lane and the lane next to it. This speed differential created a major hazard for changing lanes resulting in a huge increase in accidents (I was in such myself) and resulting jams from said accidents.

Now they are wasting lanes just for merging purposes between said lanes to reduce accidents. And when all is said and done.. very few want to use Car Pool Lanes because of differences in destinations and privacy within a car.. which also leads to fights about fairly sharing the cost of gas etc.

Now we have the looming possibility of speed monitors inside cars that report violations to wherever. Everybody, in a 65mph zone drives at what feels safe.. usually about 75-80 mph. The ones causing the accidents are the pokers at 65mph causing everyone to change lanes to go around them.

The speed limit should be set by what the people want as a majority during usage. Tickets given to anybody that deviates too far from a said established norm. That's actually how the police are currently handling traffic in most places. If you are deviating by 15mph higher or lower than those around you.. you get a ticket.

Enforcing a fixed limit is stupid.. unless the limit is regulated (electric signs?) by current traffic and road conditions.

Just my 2 cents as always..

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)
SciameriKen liked this post


Re: Policing your car

Postby zetreque on July 24th, 2017, 4:55 pm 

Dave_Oblad » Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:51 pm wrote:
Enforcing a fixed limit is stupid.. unless the limit is regulated (electric signs?) by current traffic and road conditions.


here here!

I like the speed limit signs in New Zealand. All they have on them is one giant "!"
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3661
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Policing your car

Postby someguy1 on July 24th, 2017, 6:18 pm 

Once all cars are self-driving, they can be centrally controlled. Then the authorities don't have to monitor you. They drive your car for you and you have no agency at all.

Here's libertarian car freak Eric Peters on the subject.

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2017/07 ... g-tightly/
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 733
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Policing your car

Postby SciameriKen on July 24th, 2017, 7:39 pm 

I agree with you all... But there is that elephant in the room, 40,200. That is how many people in the United States died last year in automobile related accidents. The price of freedom?
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1410
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Policing your car

Postby zetreque on July 24th, 2017, 7:48 pm 

SciameriKen » Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:39 pm wrote:I agree with you all... But there is that elephant in the room, 40,200. That is how many people in the United States died last year in automobile related accidents. The price of freedom?


Population control. I'm surprised that number isn't bigger with how stupid people are driving.

Fun fact.
I just found a newspaper from 1951. In it there was an article that said that there were 70,400,000 registered vehicles in the world that year and 49 million of those were in the US.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3661
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Policing your car

Postby Braininvat on July 24th, 2017, 7:59 pm 

I read Eric's article and had to wipe spittle off my face (is that a new feature on my PC?). The problem with your freedom to drive fast and crazy is that it directly impacts (NPI) my freedom to drive safely and sanely. Why can't we have automated highways for the bulk of the population that sees transport as getting from point A to point B with minimum fuss, and then set aside a few roads for those who actively seek danger and excitement and complete autonomy? There are plenty of countries where the major form of inter-urban travel is a train (which is essentially a bunch of large cars yoked together and moving at the same determined speed), but there are also autobahns where you can go drive your Lamborghini or whatever sporty toy excites you.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6777
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Policing your car

Postby wolfhnd on July 25th, 2017, 12:09 am 

The question seems to be how do you have a well regulated transportation system without some form of authoritarian structure that is almost certainly going to be abused.

There is an analogy between the evolution of vision during the Cambrian explosion when increasing light made vision indispensable. Something like that is happening with the internet. Almost all of our institutions have evolved in a more or less epistemological opaque environment. Institutions of all varieties from banks to churches and especially government evolved to exploit that ignorance. The emerging transparency is not just a matter of individuals having more insight into institutions but the knowledge that everyone else is also more informed. This new condition we force every institution in the world to evolve very rapidly or go extinct. The doxing of sex offenders for example is a form of public shaming that institutions have employed against the individual but institutions themselves such as the Catholic Church have been shamed publicly by exposing the cover-up of child abuse. In government Hillary Clinton and the DNC were shamed by exposing their email. We need to embrace transparency and encourage freedom of speech. Human rights are not violate by criticism or even hate speech but by actions. Certainly doxing is a form of bullying but it's effectiveness is mitigated by promoting tolerance of divergent opinions not doubling down on political correctness.

The conflict between the right to enjoy driving powerful automobiles and to use one's own judgment as to what is safe and the desire of others to maximize safety is a more difficult question. I would say that is what race courses are for, thrill seekers can rent time at those facilities. There is empirical evidence on the other hand that traffic laws only marginally reduce accidents. The roundabout is an excellent example of how giving the decision making process back to the drivers can reduce accidents. All of the above is only marginally related to the question of AI limitations on driver discretion because existing laws have already theoretically remove that discretion short of practical enforcement. It seems that the proposal to limit the drivers discretion would primarily allow for stricter punishment along the lines of drunk driving laws because such a system could always be disabled.

In general I favor heavy regulation that does not interfere with core rights as matter of personal inclination. I do realize however that there is mounting evidence that such a tendency is inferior to increased personal freedom. The war on drugs is certainly and example of regulation run amuck. A better example may be the success of the anti smoking campaign as compared to the failure of prohibition. Humans resist regulation consciously or subconsciously and I would offer the repeated failure of communism as an example. The best long term solution is probably to maximise freedom and punish only the worst offenders while creating an environment of transparency throughout society.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4688
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)



Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests