Comments on: driving and DRM

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:45:56 +0000

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.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:59:19 +0000

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.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:43:33 +0000

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).

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:36:28 +0000

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.

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:34:38 +0000

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)