I think the problem that this regulation will face will be one found in the fusebox, or more precisely, what isn't there. But it probably will have a positive impact on road safety even with some people doing that. So its understandable, especially with it only being a soft limiter (if you accelerate hard, no limiting will happen). Its just a shame that this is the route they are taking to address the problem of irresponsible driving. And to be clear, the regulations state that the driver is allowed to disable the feature in the vehicles settings. But they have stated that they do intend to enforce it as being always on a later date (presumably on cars produced after that date). Since it uses GPS data to request the speed limit in conjunction with road signs, it will presumably disable itself on race tracks. However, it may also be the start of all cars being tracked precisely, which might be a hidden goal of this regulation, since it seems to be a popular policy amongst most people. Depends whether or not they are hoovering up and storing each request location. Afaik, each manufacturer has been left to implement it themselves, so its not going to be a centralised thing. I guess on a more positive note, it could potentially help to deter vehicle theft.
EU regulators have been on a real good streak! Article 13 and now this! On this path, they’ll fix world hunger by April! Just kidding. EU politicians are even worse than American ones, and that’s an accomplishment. Have fun creating your micromanaging surveillance state!
holy- am i seeing that right? the first thing they do after a major accident is take the occupants, who are in critical condition, throw them over the bank, and go about their business? but why? why did they not call for an ambulance first? why did they tackle the clearly injured driver and cuff him rather than harass him more? I need more context.
While I don't agree with article 13, I think the internet spin machine has really misrepresented it. Because of this, many of the complaints have actually been invalid, which is a shame, because there are genuine things in there to complain about. For example, People seem to think that the super vague directives that have been shown will be enacted into law as is, this isn't how European directives work. The point of a directive is to provide the absolute minimum number of regulations possible, this is so that individual countries can then write their own independent laws. So the directive is mostly stating "as a group, this is something we should be aiming towards", but each country still gets the freedom to do it however they want to. Which is good, since each country should have the right to write its own laws. Hence they have to be vague to allow that flexibility. To reiterate, I don't agree with article 13, I am very much against it, but an angry uninformed online mob making arguments that don't make sense, isn't useful either, because it won't be taken seriously. Regardless of all that, until the US doesn't permit corporate bribery of its politicians, I don't think any argument about it being in a better state is valid. Especially since article 13 was voted for by the countries that make up the EU. Each country has a representative that they send from their own elected party to vote on the matter. So the process was equivalent to giving every state of the US a vote, and whichever option gets the most votes wins. Obviously I wish the vote had gone a different way, but it was chosen by those that the people voted for in their elections. Not that I wish to claim its a perfect system.
with driving like that, and the police possibly having been told it's drug/severe alcohol related, they were likely not taking any chances and wanted to get the situation under control as fast as possible, i think that maybe they used a bit too much force, but if that person was to have a gun, and be under the influence of something, you wouldn't want to take any chances, your life could be at steak.. Quite possibly, the guy could have been innocent, and was simply scared of being pulled over, but there was no way of telling that, in the minds of the officers.
yeah that makes sense I always try to be unbiased in these situations, but golly i dont think they needed to be that forceful.
...Or...you could restrain him, search every inch of his person than give him aid either in the car or speeding him to a hospital...? Am I thinking about this wrong?
I swear, I keep following you but I keep coming across your page and seeing that i'm not following you.. is Youtube taking over BeamNG?
