Benjamin Franklin put it best: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
While this quote became especially relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, California’s latest actions fuel its timeless status.
A bill passed in the California state Senate on Tuesday during its first vote would require all new vehicles sold in the state by 2032 to beep at drivers who exceed the speed limit by at least 10 miles per hour, The Associated Press reported.
The system would emit “a brief, one-time visual and audio signal to alert the driver,” the report said.
The technology to achieve this — intelligent speed assistant — is not novel. The AP reported it has been used in the European Union for years. Later this year, all new car sales in the EU will require its implementation, but drivers will have the option to turn it off.
The outlet noted the likelihood of the broader stakes at play with the bill. The auto manufacturing industry in California is large enough that new cars made there and sent to other states may include the technology anyway.
The bill’s author, Democratic Sen. Scott Weiner said, “Research has shown that this [technology to reduce speed] does have an impact in getting people to slow down, particularly since some people don’t realize how fast that their car is going.”
His Republican colleagues expressed skepticism about the government’s role in that.
“It’s just a nanny state that we’re causing here,” state Sen. Brian Dahle said, according to the AP.
Do you support a law requiring that vehicles alert drivers when they are speeding?
In November, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended a requirement that all new cars feature speeding alerts.
The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration estimated that 10 percent of crashes reported to police in 2021 were related to speeding.
The agency said about 35 percent of California’s traffic fatalities were speeding-related.
Looking at the issue on paper, the bill seems sensible, but the broader implications should be considered. Where would this legislation take Californians or the country as a whole?
The intelligent speed assistant keeps a record of speeds it takes from a database and then compares that with the driver.
Surely, if the driver is going to be alerted about his or her excessive speed — that is, law-breaking — then the police could be alerted as well. The possibilities could go further as automatic speeding tickets could be issued.
Given the push from President Joe Biden’s administration for electric vehicles, should we not also expect engines to be cut off if the driver refuses to comply?
The United States should not follow the European Union on anything as the latter has ballooned into an excessive superstate trampling on the liberties of the common person.
Dahle framed the bill as creating a “nanny state,” but that is too benign given the implications.
Tyranny does not often come in one cataclysmic moment. It can be death by a thousand paper cuts. Small changes that impact Americans’ ability to move freely can lead down that path.
If Weiner and other Democrats are pure in their intentions, they believe the outcome can be put aside. Look less at the intentions and more at the outcome. It does not soften the blow when freedoms are taken away to say it was well-meaning.
While the NTSB lacks legal authority, the agency can certainly push for it from the top down. Did the Founders intend for the federal government to be riding shotgun with its own brake pedal?
Of course, the counterargument from well-meaning folks is that this will reduce the dangers of driving.
As Thomas Jefferson put it to his fellow Virginian and Founding Father, James Madison, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
Freedom is certainly dangerous, but it’s also fragile and in need of defending.
Some realized this amid governments’ expansion of power during the pandemic, and they would do best to remember it now.
