1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Climate Change? Nahhh ...

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Riptide, Oct 23, 2015.

  1. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Sounds like a more muscular kind of automated congestion pricing.

    I think you can probably get away with it in Europe, where the mass transit infrastructure is so good in so many cities.

    Electric-only downtown.

    Otherwise, make people park on the perimeter of the city center, then finish their trip on the subway or bus or streetcar. Keep cars out of the most congested / polluted zones.


    add: I'd love for NYC to try this.

    But we'll spend $15 billion rebuilding the BQE instead so we can choke ourselves with more cars.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2023
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Who doesn't want to spend money their hard-earned money on a car that is controlled by a Big Brother-like, eye-in-the sky-monitoring-system that starts blaring an alarm, and then shuts off the car and won't allow you to use it?

    Where do I sign up and who do I pay for the privilege?
     
    2muchcoffeeman and Azrael like this.
  3. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    There's a lot more of that on the way thanks to autonomous cars.

    Then there's this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...drunk-driving-dui-drunken-driving/6367473001/

    And there's already an onboard data recorder.

    Add to that the various arguments one can make about your rights to buy anything - in this case a car - that comes at a cost to everyone else.

    It's quite a philosophical thicket.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2023
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Outlaw internal combustion engines if the consensus is that it creates a cost that is too onerous for others to justify the benefits (I don't think people will go for this, FWIW).

    But if the consensus is that you are not going to do that, but instead regulate how people are supposed to use the car, I could completely understand punishing the behavior you want to regulate if you catch someone in the act. That is how the rule of law works. We shouldn't limit people's freedom on the rationale that you are going to prevent them from breaking the law. We live our lives. ... and if you get caught breaking a law, you are prosecuted.

    But I find it scary when you try to control people (and their property) in that sort of way, preemtively.

    It's totalitarianism, and history should have taught people that it's a barn door you never want to open. It won't be limited to just the stuff that you might argue is righteous and justified. Everyone thinks the thing they want to control about others is justified.

    I don't want some state authority in my business, monitoring my life 24 hours a day. Nobody should.
     
    2muchcoffeeman, Azrael and Batman like this.
  5. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member


    That's exactly what the Euro 7G electronic warning does.
     
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You aren't catching someone in the act. You are monitoring everyone all the time to preemptively stop them from behaving the way you don't want -- it's Big Brother.

    Let's say I just decide to take my car off the state-controlled GPS system. It's my car. I don't want someone else controlling it. In a free society, should that be a criminal act?
     
    Azrael likes this.
  7. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Why shouldn't I be able to disable the smoke detector in a commercial airline restroom?

    Why should the state be able send me a speeding ticket from a robotic camera?
     
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    1) Because it's not your plane. You don't have to fly commercially if you don't like those rules.
    2) Yes. You legally have no expectation of privacy in a public place (like a public road). They are not forcing you to put monitoring devices in your car to control you.
     
    Azrael likes this.
  9. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    That's why you get the electronic warning first. You've reached a public boundary. A fence.

    Whether or not someone gets to control stopping the car or limiting its performance in any number of ways has already been ceded to people like Elon Musk.
     
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I don't want my car force fitted with some totalitarian state system monitoring me -- that tells someone els ehow I drive. ... and most importantly, WHERE I am going. If you want to give me a warning, put up a sign on the public road, same as there are signs telling me what the speed limit is.
     
    2muchcoffeeman likes this.
  11. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Can't wait for the first time a car heading to the hospital for a medical emergency is disabled because it broke a rule. Can't exactly explain the situation to the officer, can you?
     
    2muchcoffeeman and Batman like this.
  12. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page