• MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    While no one should be allowed to drunk-drive, I find it fundamentally fucked up for the government to have a device have to greenlight the use of your own vehicle. Even if they initially word it to be reactive, it would immediately implement the possibility. While it makes some sense for drunk driving, if it were available by default, it’d only be a matter of semmantics and suddenly your car is a large paper weight simply because you didn’t renew the registration before-hand.

    • door_hater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Doesn’t the government already greenlight vehicle usage with the drivers license?

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        You can drive without one. If there is an emergency you can escape a fucking forest fire for example.

        “Man dies after forest fire engulfs home; couldn’t outrun flames and car was remotely disabled due to overdue registration; ‘Hand were tied’ says DMV”

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          11 months ago

          Or simply just driving on private property… You can drive all you want on private property with the owners permission.

          “State disables car that was never driven on public road” is pretty bad from a personal freedom perspective.

        • door_hater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Fair enough, didn’t want to appear pro stupid car lock mechanism. I think it would be beneficial to to limit drunk driving as much as possible, but but not in a way that overcomplicates driving and makes it more dangerous.

          Had to laugh at ‘Hands were tied’ though lol, sounds too realistic

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      If you’re only using your car on public roads it technically doesn’t matter anyway(s). Public roads and the jurisdiction of public traffic laws are absolute and you can be stopped or dealt with pretty easily since thats the language of everything (“public roads”)

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Oh, I fully agree the government should have full control of public roads.

        They just shouldn’t control my vehicle unless I’ve already demonstrated I cannot. It should never be a default-available thing for them to outright disable a large life investment that can quickly become a life saving device in any number of situations.

        What if I am drunk camping and I’m the only adult driving a bunch of kids away from a sudden forest fire? Is the vehicle going to turn off? What if my panicked driving comes across as drunk and I’m actually sober? This entire concept is nothing but a bad idea.

        • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I’m saying its literally set up such that they dont care what you want or prefer with reference to YOUR car, you feel me?

          A.You have to go on public roads, B. public roads and everything in them are controlled by traffic laws/the government

          A+B =

          C. you+your car will be controlled by same

          Edit: the points i made are ok but a little salty, please disregard tone :(