[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'm for better driver training, stricter licensing requirements, and periodic testing and continuing/reinforcement education.

...which means you're for more government intervention

And of course, there will be many people (which would include a lot of car and driving enthusiasts like we all are) who would argue that what you're for is simply more "unnecessary government intervention" as it relates to driving. Many would say that not only do we have enough driving regulations now in most states, we have too much.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

...which means you're for more government intervention

And of course, there will be many people (which would include a lot of car and driving enthusiasts like we all are) who would argue that what you're for is simply more "unnecessary government intervention" as it relates to driving. Many would say that not only do we have enough driving regulations now in most states, we have too much.

No, not really. The Government already intervenes by having regulations for driver training in preparation for a person to earn a driver's license. Improving driver education means just doing a better job at what we have already agreed to let Government do.

Most states have an effective period for how long licenses remain active before they are renewed. That would be the time for retesting, it would be up to the individual to decide whether he needs to attend a driver training course in advance of retesting to renew his driver's license. Making the initial training more effective and making renewal testing more difficult to pass (than just a vision test) may require continuing (refresher) education is just doing a better, more effective job at training the driving population.

The discussion of this thread pertains to additional and new requirements for monitoring behavior via electronic surveillance technology (and making it mandatory).

[Brandoch]

All hail Freedom!

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

No, not really. The Government already intervenes by having regulations for driver training in preparation for a person to earn a driver's license. Improving driver education means just doing a better job at what we have already agreed to let Government do.

Most states have an effective period for how long licenses remain active before they are renewed. That would be the time for retesting, it would be up to the individual to decide whether he needs to attend a driver training course in advance of retesting to renew his driver's license. Making the initial training more effective and making renewal testing more difficult to pass (than just a vision test) may require continuing (refresher) education is just doing a better, more effective job at training the driving population.

The discussion of this thread pertains to additional and new requirements for monitoring behavior via electronic surveillance technology (and making it mandatory).

Making it harder to get a license, that's more government intervention. The government adding retesting for license renewals to "make renewal testing more difficult to pass (than just a vision test)" is more government intervention too.

Again, you originally suggested "stricter licensing requirements, and periodic testing and continuing/reinforcement education". Since much of this would be in addition to the current state laws that provide initial and ongoing oversight over driver's licenses, then it's more government intervention. Of course it doesn't matter whether it's the federal or state gov't, it's all a slippery slope of 'some government arm' adding regulations to make our lives more difficult, right?

So then the question becomes which government intervention makes the most sense in our "free society" that would impact saving lives? Not an easy question to answer.

Keep in mind, over the last 50 years, the government has intervened at various times to make driving safer, requiring certain manufacturing principles or adding specific laws:

Stronger bumpers
Strengthened crumple zones
Added seatbelt laws
Cars now required to have:
-Mirrors on both sides of the car
-ABS
-3rd brake lights
-DRLs
-Airbags
-3-point seatbelts (and rear seatbelts)

Were these interventions not to our collective, societal benefit? And I'm sure every time one of these was even suggested in the legislature, corporations and some group of American citizens strongly opposed each of these new regulations because of our "loss of freedom" and the "added costs". I bet many even argued that aesthetically, it makes the cars look bad. ......aesthetics > safety

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

Making it harder to get a license, that's more government intervention. The government adding retesting for license renewals to "make renewal testing more difficult to pass (than just a vision test)" is more government intervention too.

Again, you originally suggested "stricter licensing requirements, and periodic testing and continuing/reinforcement education". Since much of this would be in addition to the current state laws that provide initial and ongoing oversight over driver's licenses, then it's more government intervention. Of course it doesn't matter whether it's the federal or state gov't, it's all a slippery slope of 'some government arm' adding regulations to make our lives more difficult, right?

So then the question becomes which government intervention makes the most sense in our "free society" that would impact saving lives? Not an easy question to answer.

Keep in mind, over the last 50 years, the government has intervened at various times to make driving safer, requiring certain manufacturing principles or adding specific laws:

Stronger bumpers
Strengthened crumple zones
Added seatbelt laws
Cars now required to have:
-Mirrors on both sides of the car
-ABS
-3rd brake lights
-DRLs
-Airbags
-3-point seatbelts (and rear seatbelts)

Were these interventions not to our collective, societal benefit? And I'm sure every time one of these was even suggested in the legislature, corporations and some group of American citizens strongly opposed each of these new regulations because of our "loss of freedom" and the "added costs". I bet many even argued that aesthetically, it makes the cars look bad. ......aesthetics > safety

I've been a lifelong motorcyclist, so with respect to driving, I've learned that, as Rafichicago has already stated, individuals should be responsible for most all parts of their life. I'm old enough to have driven before most all of those safety requirements (seatbelts not withstanding) came after I earned my license to drive. I don't feel any safer in a modern car than I did in the late 1970's, because I take responsibility to not hit shit and try as best as possible to not get hit by dumbasses. The right-side mirror is a nice to have, but I learned to drive without it. All of those inventions were developed by the auto industry and adopted into law by the DOT after automakers implemented them in numerous models. 3rd brake lights may be the exception. So, were these "implementations" by the Government or just Government catching up to industry? Pretty much the latter.

[Car-Addicted]

There, I see your problem
"collective, societal benefit"

What we have here is the classic issue of Individualism vs. Collectivism.
You will take the liberty of the individual for the sake of the collective.
Force everyone to purchase more expensive cars in hope it will benefit the masses.

A man's admiration of absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him.
Alexis de Tocqueville

[DrFerry]

O.P, the answer is no.

[Blaqwhole]

How much freedom are you willing to sacrifice for the illusion of safety?

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by Blaqwhole

How much freedom are you willing to sacrifice for the illusion of safety?

One word: COVID A lot of freedom.

[Adler11th]

Currently not possible to implement properly. Even if let’s say with time it can be done, why not spend resources on proper public transportation infrastructure? They can’t even bother to do that, and we already have know how. I bet it will be much more effective and will reduce traffic and deaths. Also bet older people, people that don’t like to drive or scared, people that want to text and do makeup while traveling would much prefer to be in smooth new train and modern bus rather then have to drive the car regardless of speed limiter.
All this solution does is introduce new complexities and spending while barely addresses real issues.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

...which means you're for more government intervention

And of course, there will be many people (which would include a lot of car and driving enthusiasts like we all are) who would argue that what you're for is simply more "unnecessary government intervention" as it relates to driving. Many would say that not only do we have enough driving regulations now in most states, we have too much.

This is one of the most stupid posts I have seen on Bimmerpost in my seventeen and a half years here.

[Darkpira7e]

I don't see why cars need to come with more than 100hp. The power creep is absolutely unnecessary. Let the hot rodders and tuners fight to turn their shit up, everyone else stops being as much of a liability. Stolen normal cars will stop being missiles, car manufacturers can focus on adding more cupholders and ball cooling vents.

How many Toyota Echos kill people? Don't take away freedom, take away the primary tool used by the people who aren't ready for it. It's not right for mom and dad to lease an SUV for little Gregory to drive that comes with over 400hp, in what world is that actually necessary???

Governing speed maybe over 100MPH, sure. Under? No.

[tom2021]

Yes. No need to drive faster than 100 mph. The higher the speed, the greater the risk of severe accidents.

[cooolone2]

The NTSB and Federal Govt can go scratch their collective backsides!

Is pretty amazing how this so called Land of the FREE, is becoming anything but that lately!!!

The Left leaning Progressive agenda is to allow you living only by permission! In all things you do! And THAT is a problem!

Wonder how well that Kill Switch is going to go over when the next Katrina happens! Wait until you want to move but can't and can only do so when the Govt enables you vehicle. How about access to $$$ and you are all digitalized... Etc., Etc.

The run on Gas stoves, and a hundred other things this current administration is going after because of special interests and it's inability to get things done thereby requiring it to do something, anything, just to lend the appearance it's doing something, even when it's disastrous!!! Like pumping 2 Trillion $ into the economy absent production returns...

Yeah, I'll drive how ever I want to, thanks!

And if you really want this done, stop bypassing the Constitution and get Congress to enact a law, stop using acronym agencies using policy that isn't law to effectuate your wants (the Executive Branch)...

Is a sad sad joke...

[bmwfst1]

This built in speed limiter is the easy way out. Many other countries have higher speed limits than we do and are considered safer to drive than the USA, like germany for example. there are many reasons for this like not driving in the left lane or better roads. In the USA it is way too easy to get a license. 80% of candidates fail the Luxembourg driving test at the first attempt. Denmark definitely goes above and beyond by making students drive on slippery tracks and even do both a forward and backwards slalom. Finally, Finland makes the students complete 18 hours as a minimum before they attempt their test along with night driving and a skid pan session which helps them adjust to driving in the rain.

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by DrFerry

O.P, the answer is no.

+1

[xander_g]

Interesting thread, lots of good points across the board.

As someone who works in the industry dealing with the aftermath of motor vehicle accidents, I have seen and heard quite a few opinions.

On one hand, there would be benefits if driver education standards were raised and the licensing process became more rigorous. On the other, that will not stop unlicensed/uninsured drivers from getting on the road somehow. One can have all the training, knowledge and experience but at the end of the day you're still sharing the road with others. But then again "I am sorry you lost your husband/wife/kid in that accident, I know there in no way to make you and your family whole again but the best our legal system can do is x amount of dollars. The insurance company wanted to give you not even half of that but we did the best we could." Messed up stuff.

I think ultimately, it comes down personal responsibility.

[Car-Addicted]

Speed kills but so does lax enforcement of laws we already have on the books.

New Jersey man behind Tesla crash that killed woman, 22, admits to taking Snapchat video while driving 156 mph
The crash happened during Memorial Day Weekend in 2022. Vasu Laroiya, a then-23-year-old Rutgers grad, was driving 156 mph along I-87 while recording a video on the social media app when he rear-ended 22-year-old Katryn "Katie" Fisher, a student at the University at Albany.
The now-24-year-old also admitted to having a previous alcohol-related conviction, the Albany County District Attorney's office said in a Nov. 28 press release.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-jerse...riving-156-mph

Do we place limits on Speed?
Do we place limits on Alcohol consumption?
Do we place limits on Social media?
Or do we enforce the laws on books and punish those who break the laws and not everyone who wants to buy a car?

Increasing Alcohol Ignition Interlock Use
Ignition interlocks reduce driving while impaired (DWI) repeat offenses by about 70% while they are installed. All states have implemented ignition interlock programs to manage interlock issues and monitor offenders who are required or eligible to install them. Despite these laws and programs, only about one-fifth of those arrested for DWI have interlocks installed.
More comprehensive ignition interlock laws are known to be effective in decreasing the number of impaired drivers in fatal crashes.1 Laws requiring an ignition interlock for all offenders were associated with 26% fewer alcohol-impaired (0.08 g/dL BAC) drivers in fatal crashes compared with no interlock law during 2001–2019; laws requiring an ignition interlock for repeat and high-BAC offenders were associated with 20% fewer alcohol-impaired drivers in fatal crashes compared with no law during 2001–2019.1
https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsa...ck_states.html

[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Speed kills but so does lax enforcement of laws we already have on the books.

New Jersey man behind Tesla crash that killed woman, 22, admits to taking Snapchat video while driving 156 mph
The crash happened during Memorial Day Weekend in 2022. Vasu Laroiya, a then-23-year-old Rutgers grad, was driving 156 mph along I-87 while recording a video on the social media app when he rear-ended 22-year-old Katryn "Katie" Fisher, a student at the University at Albany.
The now-24-year-old also admitted to having a previous alcohol-related conviction, the Albany County District Attorney's office said in a Nov. 28 press release.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-jerse...riving-156-mph

Do we place limits on Speed?
Do we place limits on Alcohol consumption?
Do we place limits on Social media?
Or do we enforce the laws on books and punish those who break the laws and not everyone who wants to buy a car?

Increasing Alcohol Ignition Interlock Use
Ignition interlocks reduce driving while impaired (DWI) repeat offenses by about 70% while they are installed. All states have implemented ignition interlock programs to manage interlock issues and monitor offenders who are required or eligible to install them. Despite these laws and programs, only about one-fifth of those arrested for DWI have interlocks installed.
More comprehensive ignition interlock laws are known to be effective in decreasing the number of impaired drivers in fatal crashes.1 Laws requiring an ignition interlock for all offenders were associated with 26% fewer alcohol-impaired (0.08 g/dL BAC) drivers in fatal crashes compared with no interlock law during 2001–2019; laws requiring an ignition interlock for repeat and high-BAC offenders were associated with 20% fewer alcohol-impaired drivers in fatal crashes compared with no law during 2001–2019.1
https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsa...ck_states.html

[cmyx6go]

I have two issues with the speed limiters and the kill switches. First is the intended use and the ultimate use. They say that they will be used to stop drunk drivers and reckless speeders. Once they have the technology and ability they can use it whenever they want. Let's talk about green and saving the planet. Sorry, you drove too many miles and consumed too much gas this week. Kill switch. It's all about control. No thank you.

Then there is the reliability of the technology. My damn lane departure goes batshit crazy if there is road construction because it can't differentiate between the temporary lane markings and jerks me into a lane that no longer exists. I shut that shit off. And how about false positives on the emergency braking? I've had the car do an emergency stop for no reason several times. Thank God no one was behind me.
What could possibly go wrong?

If public safety is truly the purpose, don't make cars that go faster than X miles per hour. Or put speed governors on the engines.

[chris_1001]

No, but Tuesday....

All the people commenting for these things on this should just hand in their keys and take the bus.

Speed is not the problem, Sh!ty drivers are the problem! Most license tests here in the US are a joke!

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

how about an ignition interlock first? and a cell phone cage? I know no one would agree to that. Shit I would