Comment by thw_9a83c

7 months ago

Following this logic, I suppose that, in the future, cars that cannot automatically detect the presence of a child in a wheelchair and prevent the engine from starting will be banned.

Why are you being sarcastic about this. Obviously that will be a legal requirement at some point, just like constantly supervising the driver for tiredness is.

  • I'm not being sarcastic. I'm predicting a trajectory of never-ending increase of regulatory requirements for any human activity which I don't like. Only big players have deep pocket for lobbyists and lawyers to avoid them or resources to implement them.

    • That seems to be the end game. Increase regulations without decreasing them > regulatory capture > big corporations own / operate everything, nothing local / no small businesses.

>Following this logic, I suppose that, in the future, cars that cannot automatically detect the presence of a child in a wheelchair and prevent the engine from starting will be banned.

You said this like it is a bad thing, which is baffling? Obviously cars should do this. One of the best things about adding self-driving features is we can add features like this (and speed governors) to make cars a lot safer for everyone.

  • why overregulation is baffling to you?

    • Because it isn’t overregulation? Ensuring cars don’t kill people is a good thing. It’s proven from the last century of road deaths that people can’t actually drive them safely so automating safety is the next best thing.

      More generally I don’t think overregulation is really a thing. Just because you don’t see the use case for a rule doesn’t mean there isn’t one or it doesn’t serve some purpose. I think the last 40 years of removing rules have shown we are really bad at knowing where the line is.