California's Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Speeding Alerts in New Cars (apnews.com) 21
California governor Gavin Newsom "vetoed a bill Saturday that would have required new cars to beep at drivers if they exceed the speed limit," reports the Associated Press:
In explaining his veto, Newsom said federal law already dictates vehicle safety standards and adding California-specific requirements would create a patchwork of regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety "is also actively evaluating intelligent speed assistance systems, and imposing state-level mandates at this time risks disrupting these ongoing federal assessments," the Democratic governor said... The legislation would have likely impacted all new car sales in the U.S., since the California market is so large that car manufacturers would likely just make all of their vehicles comply...
Starting in July, the European Union will require all new cars to have the technology, although drivers would be able to turn it off. At least 18 manufacturers including Ford, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Nissan, have already offered some form of speed limiters on some models sold in America, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.
Thanks to Slashdot reader Gruntbeetle for sharing the news.
Starting in July, the European Union will require all new cars to have the technology, although drivers would be able to turn it off. At least 18 manufacturers including Ford, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Nissan, have already offered some form of speed limiters on some models sold in America, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.
Thanks to Slashdot reader Gruntbeetle for sharing the news.
Turn it off and pay the price (Score:1)
although drivers would be able to turn it off.
And if you turn it off, it will be immediately reported to whatever European equivalent of LexisNexis and your insurance premiums will immediately shoot up.
Welcome to surveillance capitalism, where the consumer is led to believe he has a choice, but really doesn't have a choice.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:1)
Capitalism never have consumers a choice beyond having 19 brands of shampoo to choose from.
Choice was always an illusion, limited to choices that made no meaningful difference in your life.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:1)
gave*
Re: (Score:1)
And just how many of those 19 brands of shampoo are actually owned by one company like P&G.
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:1)
Even the illusion is an illusion.
Re: (Score:1)
What are you talking about? Capitalism never promised to give you any choice other than that of choosing between several competing products to find the best one for you.
Where surveillance capitalism become a dystopia is when you have the illusion of a choice: there is no real option other than the path of least resistance offered by the ubiquitous surveillance capitalists. If you dissent and choose something else, you're punished by paying more or having less convenience. The choice technically exists, but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:1)
So... You're saying we need capitalism with elements of socialism?
So really capitalism does not work, without being fettered by restraints which are anti-capitalist.
It's almost like any extreme is bad and some healthy balance needs to be found.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like any extreme is bad and some healthy balance needs to be found.
Exactly. What a concept eh? Imagine that.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you turn it off, it will be immediately reported to whatever European equivalent of LexisNexis and your insurance premiums will immediately shoot up.
Welcome to surveillance capitalism, where the consumer is led to believe he has a choice, but really doesn't have a choice.
I really enjoy reading your fan-fic on the weekends.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
If you think the EU is the land of fairies where the consumer has actual, meaningful rights, you're sorely deluded.
If sonsabitches American companies likes Google, Microsoft or Facebook, whose entire business model consists in putting people under surveillance and abusing their private data, still operate in Europe and haven't pulled out, it's because there is no real threat to their business model in Europe.
Think about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite the land of fairies, but the number of times said companies have been forced to change their services in the region, or been hit by fines for not being compliant with privacy regulations, is some indication that it _is_ more stringent there. Not perfect, but almost certainly at least a bit better than "corporations do whatever they want"-land.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to read more than just the marketing brochure.
Re: (Score:2)
But can you name a previous case in EU where the driver's choices inside the car would get reported?
For example, the eCall system (automatic notification of emergency services in case of an accident detected by the car, e.g. airbag triggered) is compulsory on new cars since 2018. Its presence and normal function are checked on the periodic technical inspection (on the 4th year, then every two years). In between, you can physically remove it and there has been no reports of consequences for the drivers (insu
Re: Turn it off and pay the price (Score:1)
Where the fuck do you get that European style government nanny state is capitalism? Capitalism is having the choice to install this equipment on your car, not the government prescribing it for you.
Save the beeps for fines and tolls (Score:2)
Why screw with the number one source of revenue for the State: DMV.
Re: (Score:2)
Why screw with the number one source of revenue for the State: DMV.
Looking at California property taxes and their general consumer taxes, you sure about that “number one” source of revenue claim?
It just makes sense (Score:2)
If you ever drove there you'd know this to be true.
I guarantee you any speeding alert in a car would just be distracting and ignored.