[mulmen]

> It’s always been weird to me the US doesn’t do this and often requires a trooper to pull you over and give you a written ticket.

Very different cultures. The US is still a culture of personal accountability and freedom. If you aren't hurting anyone you can do as you please. The UK skews toward rules for the sake of rules. Sadly the US is also moving in that direction, but mercifully still trails the UK.

[bruce511]

You are right, it's very much a culture thing.

On the US side its very "individual good" focus, whereas in the UK (and Europe in general) its more "community good" focused.

This may be partly a function of density- with higher density comes more human interaction in a smaller space.

The US also had a long period of no, or minimal govt, over very wide areas. This lead to a culture of personal security etc (think Westerns with people carrying guns).

Most Americans see govt at best as a necessary evil, who is actively working "against my interest." Whereas most Europeans see govt as an effective way to "promote community interest". (I'm referencing govt as a concept here, not as a political or party construct. In other words you might be against the people currently in govt, but still appreciate that there should be a govt.)

[mulmen]

I don’t agree with your stereotype of Americans. We very much believe in our institutions.

[akira2501]

It's the long tail of free speech. You can't stop someone from publishing information about how to defeat such a device. It would become common knowledge very quickly and would be used easily by criminals with specialized toolsets available on several different levels of marketplace.

In the UK, you can much more easily wrap all that up, and deny existence to those markets and even to import of that equipment.

And it's beyond culture. The UK holds an active monarchy and a hereditary house of parliament. The citizen simply does not have the same status and is unavoidably a "subject."

[TeaBrain]

Hereditary peerage was ended with the House of Lords Act 1999.

[Ao7bei3s]

I don't know anything about UK law, but apparently the act still allows for 92 hereditary peers[1], and indeed:

"The most recent grant of a hereditary peerage was in 2019 for the youngest child of Elizabeth II, Prince Edward"[2]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Act_1999

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_peer

[TeaBrain]

I was specifically referring to hereditary peerage in the House of Lords, which was almost completely done away with. At around 13% of members, the chamber is largely no longer a chamber of hereditary peers. Hereditary peerage and hereditary peerage participation in the house of lords are separate. There are around 800 hereditary peers, but since 1999, only 92 of these hereditary titles have a spot in the house of lords. The hereditary peerage granted to Prince Edward is not one of the 92 hereditary peerages in the House of Lords, so it doesn't allow him participation.