Posted on 02/17/2005 10:28:42 AM PST by freepatriot32
—nanny-car adj.
Example Citations:
The legacy of the witless 60 Minutes investigation into runaway Audis almost two decades ago is that soon nobody will be allowed to start a car, raise or lower a convertible top, or so much as open the gas cap without flooring the clutch, putting on the parking brake and then putting both feet out the window.Nanny-car syndrome will get worse, as traffic density and automotive performance increase; as manufacturers turn cars into rolling offices, restaurants, I'm-so-wired communicators and DVD entertainment centers; and as driver competence plummets.
—Stephan Wilkinson, "Man & Machine," Popular Science, December, 2003
Your car soon may be more than just transportation. It could become your nanny.Federal regulators are urging automakers to install devices that chime, buzz, beep, blink and otherwise nag you until you fasten your seatbelt. Ford uses such gadgets, and others may follow.
Seatbelts save lives. They would save a lot more if we could get our usage up from the current 73 percent of motorists.
The feds also are about to require sensors that will warn the driver of underinflated tires. If tire pressure is low, warning lights will come on until the tires are properly filled. That's going to require a lot of badgering, because only about 11 percent of motorists properly check their tires.
Down the road, perhaps, the nanny car will have devices that monitor body fat and cholesterol. If they're too high, the car won't start.
Instead a flashing display on the dashboard will say: "You're too fat. Get out and walk."
—"Coming soon: nagmobile," The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN), October 15, 2002
Do you need the government as a mommy? Most adults don't so I would guess that neither do you.
You must be joking when you make such a remark.
Do you know you are at a forum called Freerepublic.com?
Indiana Constitution
Bill of Rights. (not to be confused with a bill of privileges)
Section 1.
WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the people;
What part of LIBERTY do you not understand?
How did the right to travel by horse or wagon, before the invention of the automobile, constitutionally become a privilege, granted by the state, after the invention of the automobile, without a constitutional amendment?
When did a "law or regulation" have the constitutional hierarchy to circumvent, deny, dismiss, diminish, and disparage rigths enumerated in an Article of a Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights?
The only reason citizens injured in an automobile collision from not wearing a seatbelt "cost...frigging money..." and "guess who pays for that?" is because the citizens, through their representatives were dumb enough to enact legislation for that purpose.
Repeal such laws and it will not cost you a dime whether someone wears a seatbelt or not, from the public treasury.
If it costs the insurance company money, they will eventually write policies that are two tiered: seatbelt use, a low premium. No seatbelt use, a higher premium.
If found not wearing a seatbelt with a seatbelt use policy, that policy is now void, the insurance company does not have to pay.
And your state government cannot do anything about such contracts.
Indiana Constitution
Section 24.
No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed.
What part of "shall ever be passed" do the Indiana citizens and legislators not understand?
By the way, my suggestion on how to handle the issue of "public safety" and seat belt use is how free people act in a free capitalistic economy with constitutionally protected, inalienable rights.
Hippie. =P
Are you running for any public office? I'd like to vote for you.
"Funny though I am still waiting for my refund from all the money seat belts have saved."
I know that my rates ARE lower because I have full airbags and ABS. And my auto insurance rates have indeed gone down in recent years, more than one would expect just because the cars are a year older. In fact, they're down a huge amount. I have no idea why, though. We didn't have wrecks or tickets that have moved off our records and we haven't moved into a statistically safer driving age. But my premium is hundreds of dollars lower than it was three years ago.
"Wyss said legislators should focus on public safety, not personal rights."
that is rino talk by definition.Infringing on personal freedom for the common good is what dems and rinos do.If you cant see how that is rino I feel sorry for you please let me know how the koolaid tastes.
Because none of these are true, I do not object to this type law."
Just because the citizens of a state, through their elected legislators, are dumb enough to enact such payment laws, does not mean that the "rights" of the citizens are now deniable or can be disparaged or diminished.
Repeal the stupid laws, but do not deny and disparage rights, that is what free people do, living in a capitalistic economy, in a constitutional republic.
Very true. Montag may want to work on his understanding of English sentence structure as well.
I propose seat belt laws on motorcycles, bicycles, skate boards, snow skiis, water skiis, roller skates and ice skates. Also, movie theater seats, baby strollers, beds, and sleeping bags. Warning lables on knives, forks, spoons, hammers, bricks, rock, and limitations on pencil sharpeners....
Be careful what you ask for. When pencil sharpeners are outlawed...
...only outlaws will have sharp pencils.
I hope you read posts 10 and 12 and others.
Bump for your clear-headed reasoning!
I'll vote for you, too. Maybe even if you run as a Redemopublicrat.
Thanks. That "driving is a privelige" thing is a real sore spot for me. Why not "[Insert activity here] is a privelige" and only to be engaged in if you're on this particular governments good side? Why not sex? Eating, drinking, and breathing? What makes driving so unique?
Can't the state regulate driving privledges such as who gets a license, rules and laws to make driving legal. I'm not for laws taking away my rights but I would think safety is a concern. If gov't can't regulate my freedom, then why don't I have the freedom to litter or such..It wouldn't hurt anyone if I did......I just think the principle of pure freedom like pure communism just can't be the end all of an ordered society.........IMO
It has more room than my '70 BMW. I can store pretty much my whole life in it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.