[dionidium]

We can make a car so that it knows it's raining, it can tell the tires are getting poor traction, it knows its location, it knows it's in a school zone, it knows the prevailing speed limit, it has cameras and can see there are children crossing the street ahead, internal cameras sense that the driver isn't paying attention, the stereo is loud, and yet -- the car should ignore every one of those inputs, because if the driver presses their foot on the accelerator pedal, then that means it should increase its speed, without any other consideration, because of "freedom?"

It's absurd.

Why would you manufacture a means of conveyance that behaves that way? You certainly wouldn't ever allow one on a public street, not when you have all the tech I described above. That's a bad product. I mean, it might describe an ATV or something -- a vehicle you use for fun off of public thoroughfares. But it's not a serious vehicle that meets the standards for operating on public rights of way.

[macinjosh]

Please do not mock freedom. The freedom to push on the accelerator pedal even when The Computer thinks I should not means I can get me and my kid out of a dangerous situation the computer doesn't know about. Freedom is control over your own body, life, and property. There is a lot of responsibility that comes with this control. Sorry if I don't want to out source control over my person to a computer or parts of society with whom I share no values.

[dionidium]

This is the "extension of yourself" part I opened with. You're still talking about the car likes it's an extension of youself. It isn't. It's just a tool. And it doesn't limit your freedom in any way that we require this particular tool to meet certain operational standards in order to be allowed on a public road. I reject the notion that there's even a freedom component here at all.

We already regulate practically every aspect of driving. You're just used to those things, so they seem invisible.

[Pet_Ant]

This sounds a lot like gun control. In likelyhood you are going to hurt yourself more than prevent harm from happening... but banning guns does mean that on the off chance a gang of bank robbers storms into your house your are powerless.

I believe there was a car in the 80's that would not start the ignition if the driver's seatbelt wasn't on. One day a women was trying to flee from an attempted rapist and was too panicked to buckle in... and well he got to her, and she sued.

The tradeoffs between general benefits and particular harms have lots of nuance and really plug into deep personal values.

[dionidium]

The right to self-defense and the right to operate any kind of vehicle you desire on a public right of way don't actually sound similar to me at all.