Thanks to mole-eyed darkness dwellers bent on controlling every aspect of human experience, one can expect all new European and UK cars to have built-in speed limiters by year 2022. Although Volvo is the first manufacturer to bend over and say “Thank you sir, may I have another?” by limiting the top speed of all their cars to 112 mph, the sort of “intelligent” speed limiter under consideration isn’t a simple governor that limits the top speed of the machine.
No, this speed limiter is one that prevents the driver from exceeding the posted speed limit using GPS and built in sign-recognition cameras. As usual, this Brave New World-like next step in the control of movement of individuals is to be sold under the banner of “safety”. Undoubtedly, it will be hailed as a great step forward “for the sake of the children”, as intrusive authoritarian measures typically are.
Because after all, it’s for your safety, and safety is the bestest most awesomest thing ever. -Jacter Trixter
According to an article in The Guardian, all new cars sold in Europe and the UK will be fitted with mandatory electronic nannies which are claimed will save 25,000 lives by 2037. In my humble opinion, I believe this makes a great case for owning an analog vehicle. When I think of all the safety breakthroughs in British motoring besides the seat belt, my mind is immediately brought to all of the built-in life-saving features mandatorily included in James Bond’s long line of analog wheels.
Take for example the ejector seat and tire slashing wheel hubs of Bond’s DB5. There are innumerable situations wherein both of those safety devices have proven over time to save lives. Just try finding an air force jet that doesn’t have an ejector seat. You can’t, because ejector seats save lives; and every car needs to be fitted with two of them minimally at this critical time. In fact, by making child safety ejector seats mandatory by next Tuesday, it will save upwards of 13,502 young lives by 2029. That’s right, I can make up statistics off the top of my head just like the policy makers do. Oh, and tire slashers are so obviously life-saving I need not say more.
Another invaluable safety device deployed on 007’s Aston Martin is the bulletproof screen which raises up behind the rear window like a motorized flat screen TV rising out of a console table. According to the freedom of safety activist group Smart People Against Death, those individuals who frequently drive through major cities can on average extend their lives by as much as 23% between now the year 2031 by enacting legislation requiring car makers to add on this simple device. Clearly, the time to act is now.
Speaking of safety, one more analog safety feature that should be included for your family’s safety on every safe new car to be manufactured according to the new safety standards is the submarine capability of Bond’s “water-safe” Lotus. Were it to be made mandatory, there would be legions of famous people we all know and love who would have never gasped their last breath beneath the churning waters, and would remain safely alive in their safety cars today.
People like Whitney Houston, Natalie Wood, founding member of the Beach Boys Dennis Wilson, and popcorn tycoon Orville Redenbacher, would all still be alive and safe if access to open water were to be restricted only to those who safely approach such dangerous situations in cars manufactured to these new safety standards. Clearly, anyone who would want access to open water and all these people dead are psychopaths, so it’s important that we pass these mandatory safety measures yesterday, if you catch my drift.
“Safety campaigners described the move as one of the biggest leaps forward in 50 years and said it could save 25,000 lives by 2037.” -The Guardian
“The speed limiter is one of a range of safety features to be made mandatory from 2022, along with automated emergency braking, electronic data recorders and improved visibility built into lorries for drivers to see vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians around the vehicle”, happily reports The Guardian. Only sick individuals would want cyclists to be flattened by a semi, so passing this raft of unrelated “safety” features mentioned in passing (or not at all) is a must for a civilized and mentally healthy society.
Reading the above quote again safely and carefully, it may dawn on you that speed limiters aren’t the only thing imposed upon drivers to suck what joy remains out of the driving experience. Emergency braking, and having a “black box” recording where you go and how you got there is on tap. What could possibly go wrong with that? (That’s sarcasm, in case you were wondering.) The next line of the article inevitably reads, “Safety campaigners described the move as one of the biggest leaps forward in 50 years and said it could save 25,000 lives by 2037.”
Here comes some more sarcasm, and you want to know why? Because I just can’t help it with a target this big and obvious. Somehow the Guardian’s editors considered it newsworthy that the people who contrived this protection racket would say that their plan is the bestest, coolest, most awesomest and amazingest idea ever; rivaled only by the seatbelt, leavened bread, and blue toilet water. Who could have seen that coming?
Apart from the Guardian newspaper spinning Orwellian government overreach positively, (guardians are there to keep you safe, after all) let’s consider this number pulled out of thin air. The “safety” crowd arbitrarily states that this legislation will spare the UK population about 1600 people each year over the next 18 years.
It seems to me that whatever number they decide to pull out of their hat, representing the lives saved by enacting their brand of safety, would be more than compensated for by the massive increase in suicides. Suicides committed by bored motorists who can no longer take the drudgery of plodding along in their beige transportation vessels. Undoubtedly, it will be unconditionally necessary to rush along further legislation in order to ensure that these individuals find safe passage out of this world and into the eternal void.
It’s nearly guaranteed that the kind of unbridled delight promoted by the Motorists’ International Central Optimism Council (MI COC) sounds wonderful in the minds of the soulless brown-nosers that fill the halls of regulatory agencies. (Yes, I’m sorry to say that those very same brown-nosers who you didn’t like when they were sucking up to the teacher in high school still exist, and now you know where they are.)
It’s not difficult to imagine the exuberant round of self-congratulation these lackeys offer themselves after presenting such an idea to their department heads. Department heads who, while briefly taking a break from reading their latest copy of Modern Monotony magazine to consider the outgassings of their subordinates, later bask in the glory of the possible promotion they’ll receive as they pass the idea off as their own up the chain of command.
It reminds me of a precocious schoolboy who comes up with the idea that we put padlocks on every refrigerator and pantry in town and create an overpaid governmental enforcement division comprised of WalMart stock-clerk rejects who think they are actually police to unlock them twice a day. Said rejects are then given training in hot dog abuse and are given a paper badge that reads: “Federal Bureau of All Things Wonderful, Saving the Children, and Free Unicorns Agency”, in order to maintain the centrally planned daily “minimum survival quotient”.
Because after all, it’s for your safety, and safety is the bestest most awesomest thing ever. Heck, even Johnny will excitedly tell that this you that limiting free access to “food units” will cut down on obesity by 95% and save 5,000 British people per year from dying of complications from diabetes. Never mind the 15,000 people per year who open their wrists with a butter knife in a hot bath due to the looming bleakness of eating nothing but broccoli and endive for every meal for the rest of their lives.
Regardless, Johnny will go on to tell you that things have reached crisis levels and that we have no more time to think about it, but that it’s absolutely critical that we act without any further consideration. To do so would be to halt the steady march of progress. That would make you a bad person. Very bad.
So how do the claims of these pasty bureaucrats stack up?