• DupaCycki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    I can see why people may be worried about these. But if your choices consist of blatant disregard for other people’s lives, and actively putting them at risk, then… yeah, maybe you shouldn’t have the ability to make them.

    Not speaking to you directly. Just in general.

    • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Oh don’t get me wrong I agree with it in principle for that circumstance. The problem is these things never stay in those conditions. Utilization creeps. It starts with let’s protect the children let’s protect the innocent, and pretty soon nobody can do what they want anymore.

      Besides, that’s what the laws are for and they should have their license revoked or they go to jail.

      Put another way, as Ben Franklin once said, those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither.

      • Leviathan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        This particular case seems to me like putting a breathalyzer in an impaired driver’s car. These aren’t toys, they’re dangerous machines that we’re doing nothing about being built more dangerous by the year. If someone egregiously breaks the law and gets a limiter as punishment I’m okay with it like I’m okay with a breathalyzer.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Speeding tickets are subjective and the limit within a year is two. Just being in a spot where you drive by police makes you infinitely more likely to become a super speeder, and that doesn’t even get into the ways this could be used maliciously.