Thursday , November 21 2019
Home / LewRockwell / Automotive Pre-Emption

Automotive Pre-Emption

Summary:
New cars do lots of things cars didn’t do in the past – which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Convenience has its merits. But what about pre-emption? Cars once did as they were told by their owners – and no more. If you didn’t want the doors to lock or the lights to come on they didn’t – until you locked them or turned them on. You could spin the tires – and lock up the brakes – as you liked. New cars take those choices away from you – like a parent schooling a child. It is about to get much worse. Volvo – which is not-coincidentally owned by the control-freak Chinese – intends to include an upgraded version of its “Volvo on Call” technology in its cars within the next couple of years. What it means is that your Volvo will make a

Topics:
Eric Peters considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Tom Woods writes Ep. 1538 Socialist Runs into Buzzsaw

Don Boudreaux writes Some Links

Tyler Durden writes Futures Spike After China’s Top Trade Negotiator Says “Cautiously Optimistic” About Phase 1

Tyler Durden writes Media Manipulation: Story About Immigrant ‘Kids In Cages’ Scrubbed After UN Said It Happened On Obama’s Watch

New cars do lots of things cars didn’t do in the past – which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Convenience has its merits.

But what about pre-emption?

Cars once did as they were told by their owners – and no more. If you didn’t want the doors to lock or the lights to come on they didn’t – until you locked them or turned them on. You could spin the tires – and lock up the brakes – as you liked.

New cars take those choices away from you – like a parent schooling a child.

It is about to get much worse.

Volvo – which is not-coincidentally owned by the control-freak Chinese – intends to include an upgraded version of its “Volvo on Call” technology in its cars within the next couple of years. What it means is that your Volvo will make a call – about your driving. If the car doesn’t like it – based on data gleaned from sensors which monitor how you drive – the car will slow itself down and park. Where you’ll wait until the car decides to let you drive again.

Assuming it hasn’t called the cops.

Volvo isn’t the only car company intending to install such technology, either. In fact most cars sold since about 2015 already have the technology to monitor – and stymie – your driving.

Soon, they may have even more technology.

New Mexico Senator Tom Udall – along with Senator Rick Scott of Florida – are “calling” for  a new federal law (see here) requiring that all new cars be equipped with passive and active technology to prevent the car from being driven – and stop it while it’s being driven – if sensors detect the presence of alcohol, the amount of that presence tunable to nil by the government-corporate nexus.

Right now, the legal threshold defining presumptive “drunk” driving in most states is a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .08 – but several states – such as Utah – want to lower it to .05 or even less. For those under the legal age to drink alcohol, which is 21, any alcohol – even if not actually in the person – constitutes “drunk” driving if it is found inside the car, under “zero tolerance” laws in every state.

Of course, the laws above are antiquated in that they require the overt act before punishment is imposed. No state has yet required that a person who hasn’t been convicted of DWI be required to have alcohol detectors – and ignition interlocks – built into his vehicle just in case he might attempt to drive after drinking.

So old fashioned! The guilty might escape – so let’s make sure the innocent don’t.

hat, at any rate, seems to be the thinking of Inner Party members Udall and Scott and (of course) Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has become Mothers Against Drinking – period.

Which may have merit but then one could just as easily “call” – as they style it – for the abolition of all these distracting touchscreens in cars, which could almost certainly be proved a hazard to concentration at least equal to having had a single beer, glass of wine or mixed drink with dinner – the amount of alcohol sufficient to approach the .05 BAC standard.

Probably more of a hazard, since alcohol may blur one’s vision – when consumed in large quantities – but doesn’t make you take your eyes off the road, as using a touchscreen necessarily does.

Never mind. The usual cognitive dissonance – and selective persecution – applies.

Eric Peters
Eric Peters is a freelance car/bike/political columnist. He escaped the corporate-owned media Big Boys years ago. Without the censorship of the corporate tools

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *