A handful of years back the NHTSA announced that all new cars would have to have a vehicle to vehicle 5.7-5.9 GHz system for announcing vehicle position, velocity, and cryptographically signed ID. Luckily the dates just came and went and the manufacturers didn't do it. The NHTSA folded and eventually the FCC gave that ~hundreds MHz of 5 GHz band back to wifi.
Hopefully that's what will happen here. The NTSB only recommends things to the NHTSA. So this proposal hasn't even gotten as far as the above example.
>Assuming a final rule is issued in 2019, this would mean that the phase-in period would begin in 2021, and all vehicles subject to that final rule would be required to comply in 2023.
> you for drunk driving or excessive speed driving or both?
I’m against a system that refuses to let me drive because it thinks I’m drunk. Or a system that would prevent me from breaking the speed limit, at my discretion, e.g. in an emergency.
> against disabling cars, but all for automatically notifying 911
Depending on the system's accuracy, this could be a fair compromise. Alternatively: a black box record in case something goes wrong. Less preventative. But deterring and reasonable.
Are you saying that anyone should be allowed to drive whatever speed they like, based on their "discretion"? If so, is that different from getting rid of speed limits?
Most people aren't capable of driving as fast as a trained emergency responder, much less driving like a psycho in a panic because they're dealing with a medical emergency and are completely emotionally unprepared for it.
I've been involved in an situation that resulted in a fatality and trying to rescue the victim and for an untrained responder your ability to think and process gets chopped down to around 25% of what it is normally. That is probably worse if the victim is someone you know. Now you want to argue that those people should be driving 100 mph through the streets blowing through red lights and whatever at their own discretion like that solves problems.
People need to call 911 and get the ambulance, which can stabilize the patient, to come to them. They can run code red and are trained in how to run red lights and get around traffic safely. They do it for a living and they're emotionally detached from the emergency.
Not to mention that the tires on the average vehicle shouldn't be driven that fast and they're probably nearly bald due to lack of maintenance.
> Not really sure what you're arguing for here. Are you for drunk driving or excessive speed driving or both?
Your strawman is naked. You should dress him in some plausible deniability.
There's nothing in the comment you are replying to to suggest in the slightest way that he is in favor of those things. Just because he's against the flavor of Skynet(TM) you want doesn't mean he's in favor of whatever random "bad thing" you want to paint him as in favor of.
Driving on the 401 in Toronto, cars are usually going 130 km/he in a 100 km/hr zone. People get to their destinations safely. The unnecessary complexity and price of a speed limiter is not worth it.
Hopefully that's what will happen here. The NTSB only recommends things to the NHTSA. So this proposal hasn't even gotten as far as the above example.