Staff Reports
The recent actions in California have brought to light the age-old debate between safety and freedom. The state Senate passed a bill that would require all new vehicles sold in the state by 2032 to emit a signal when the driver exceeds the speed limit by at least 10 miles per hour. This system, known as the intelligent speed assistant, has been used in the European Union for years and is now making its way to California.
Western Journal: California Follows European Example – Seeks to Alert Drivers When They Break Speed Limit https://t.co/7zYMRWLrrB
— Ian Hansen 🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@IanHansenFeed) May 23, 2024
Supporters of the bill argue that this technology has the potential to greatly reduce speeding-related accidents, as research has shown that it effectively gets people to slow down. Additionally, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all new cars feature speeding alerts, as it estimated that 10 percent of crashes reported to police in 2021 were related to speeding. Furthermore, about 35 percent of California’s traffic fatalities were speeding-related.
However, some California lawmakers and conservative voices are expressing skepticism about the government’s role in implementing such technology. They argue that this could lead to a “nanny state” with broader implications for individual freedoms. They raise concerns about the potential for the government to track and monitor drivers’ behavior, potentially leading to automatic speeding tickets or even the possibility of engines being cut off if the driver refuses to comply.
This debate touches on the fundamental question of the government’s role in balancing safety measures with personal freedoms. Some believe that the potential infringement on individual liberties is too high a price to pay for increased safety on the roads. They argue that the United States should not follow the European Union’s lead in implementing such measures, as they see it as an overreach of government power.
Ultimately, this debate goes beyond the specific legislation in California and raises questions about the proper role of government in regulating individual behavior. As the debate continues, it is important to consider the broader implications of such measures on personal freedoms and the potential for government overreach.
