Ryan and Ezra and Matt are talking about cars that can’t go faster than 75 miles per hour, the idea being that mandating such a change would save lives. I’m not sure what to think about that. I probably shouldn’t bother thinking much — the idea is clearly politically impossible.
But it’s intriguing nonetheless. In particular, it’s interesting to consider this theoretical speed limitation as an analogue of DRM — a means of crippling devices so that consumers don’t misuse them. As you might imagine, I’m not a fan of conventional DRM. I think it’s inevitably circumvented and accomplishes nothing other than inconveniencing users.
On the other hand, I do favor some sorts of restrictions on the devices that consumers can buy and that manufacturers would like to sell to them. I approve of some forms of gun control, for instance, including limitations on the mechanical capabilities of firearms. I think that such restrictions are less easily circumvented than copy protection, and of course the consequences of a single successful circumvention do not represent a system-wide failure in the way that they would within the digital realm. That makes the undertaking a bit more worthwhile in my eyes.
Cars fall somewhere in the middle. There’s already a thriving hobbyist scene devoted to swapping out engine timing chips for less efficient, more powerful alternatives. And of course more generally there’s a ton of aftermarket automotive components that performance tuners can buy. I have no doubt that speed restrictors, however implemented, would be easily beaten by motivated individuals.
But would the inconvenience of upgrading from the default limitation save lives? Probably. I’m not sure how many, though, and it’s conceivable that a speed limitation may cause deaths in ways that this debate’s participants aren’t anticipating. I remain generally suspicious of efforts to cripple devices that consumers can buy.
Mostly unrelatedly, during some preparatory spooky-story reading this weekend I came across this quotation from The Gold-Bug, which I thought sums up the DRM situation pretty nicely:
[I]t may well be doubted whether human ingenuity can construct an enigma of the kind which human ingenuity may not, by proper application, resolve.
Until recently public key cryptography arguably provided a counterexample, but quantum computing seems poised to prove Poe right once again.
My understanding (which is quite limited) is that many cars do have speed restrictors. They’re just not set so low as Yglesias et. al would prefer. Of course, these restrictors seem aimed more at baroque, extreme speeding, not mild recklessness. Still, the principle is there, and once a movement got off the ground to limit cars to, e.g., 90 mph, I’m not sure how it would be stopped. It’s not like there’s not enough data out there demonstrating that lives would be saved, and it’s not like 90 mph isn’t illegally fast everywhere, anyway (except for Montana, if they still have speed-limit-free roads–but even those roads require a reasonable speed).
For marginally more information of marginal reliability, check out the “Automobiles” section of this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(device)
Oh, right, the thrust of your argument. I’m sure you’re right that there will always be people capable of and willing to circumvent these restrictions, but if the solution is complicated or expensive enough (and the restriction isn’t overly burdensome), most people won’t bother.
Engines may have speed restrictors, but of course they’re not set to any uniform value, at least not in the US. It’s possible to go out and buy a ridiculously fast car.
And I agree, most folks wouldn’t circumvent a governor device. But given the huge numbers of people who tune their cars for marginal horsepower improvements I’m sure a significant number would — and I suspect that this same population, more or less, is the one at greatest risk for dying as a result of excessive speed (ie young men). It’s easy to imagine mechanics throwing in this service, too, in the same way that a cable repair guy might offer to get you free HBO (well, back in the days before they could get caught for it).
Oh, as for the politics: I really don’t see this happening. Organizations like MADD have had considerable success, but the American myth of the car is powerful. To continue the gun control analogy, consider how impassioned people get over restrictions on the weapons they can buy, and what a political liability it’s been for the paternalists that favor regulation. I think speed restrictions on cars would work out similarly — except nearly everyone is a car enthusiast, whereas a relatively small sliver of the population is interested in high-powered weaponry.
You’re probably right, but there is no constitutional right to drive. That said, while it may be legally distinguishable it is, as a practical/political matter, not likely to happen anytime soon.