• @Kwakigra@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Reading about state legislatures is always wild. They always use moon logic when debating and rarely mention the actual content of the bill. Driver deaths are spiking due to greater instances of inebriation on the road therefore to fix it the State of California needs to be able to track all drivers via GPS. Makes sense to me, why not.

    1. (a) As used in this article, “passive intelligent speed assistance system” means an integrated vehicle system that uses, at minimum, the GPS location of the vehicle compared with a database of posted speed limits, to determine the speed limit, and utilizes a brief, one-time visual and audio signal to alert the driver each time they exceed the speed limit by more than 10 miles per hour.
    • @ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 month ago

      My favorite part of that is “what database?” If it’s local, who is responsible for updating it and how often. If it’s remote, who is responsible for updating it, how often and who pays for the connectivity costs and equipment?

      Also since it’s GPS based, does this mean all new cars in CA will come with free Nav systems? (I know, I know)

    • @antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 month ago

      My vehicle already displays the speed limit on the dash. This could be met with a firmware update. Doesn’t say anything about sharing that information, it just needs to send a beep and flash a light to the driver one time. Kind of misleading to say that California will be tracking drivers. They’re just trying to require a new annoyance in cars, similar to the one that beeps if your seat belt isn’t buckled.