zlacker

>>ANewbu+(OP)
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.

>>thw_9a+re
>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.

>>oldjim+Ll1
why overregulation is baffling to you?

>>p0w3n3+MT2
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.