European Union to put speed limiters on all cars?

September 2, 2013
I said, no fun allowed!

Nanny says “Slow down!”

The world’s biggest nanny-state has decided that too many people are dying on Europe’s highways. Rather than leave that problem up to the member nations, the Euro-mandarins in Brussels have proposed to put speed-limiters, some of them satellite-controlled, on all cars. Go too fast, and Nanny puts on the brakes:

Under the proposals new cars would be fitted with cameras that could read road speed limit signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded.

Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, is said to be opposed to the plans, which could also mean existing cars are sent to garages to be fitted with the speed limiters, preventing them from going over 70mph.

The new measures have been announced by the European Commission’s Mobility and Transport Department as a measure to reduce the 30,000 people who die on the roads in Europe every year.

A Government source told the Mail on Sunday Mr McLoughlin had instructed officials to block the move because they ‘violated’ motorists’ freedom. They said: “This has Big Brother written all over it and is exactly the sort of thing that gets people’s backs up about Brussels.

“The Commission wanted his views ahead of plans to publish the proposals this autumn. He made it very clear what those views were.”

I’d like to think the minister illustrated his point with the traditional English two-finger salute. And this should be really popular in Germany, where the “need for speed” on the autobahns is a well-known national trait. So, what’s next? EU directives on how one shall cut one’s steak, with a minder showing up to measure each piece with calipers to make sure it isn’t too large?

This is another illustration of the control-freak nature of the Left (1): it’s not enough to set speed limits and levy fines for violating them, nor even to suspend driving privileges for repeat violations. Nope, they have to stand over you constantly lest you pass the bounds of what they determine to be proper. Go too fast, and Nanny will make you slow down.

Democrats in Washington and Sacramento must be green with envy.

Afterthought: Speaking of which, driverless cars are on the way. Who needs speed limiters when bureaucrats can control the whole vehicle? (2)

via David Burge

Footnotes:
(1) The whole European Union government is a statist paradise. The small-government, liberty-of-the-individual politician is a rare sight.
(2) Please. It’s only a matter of time before some progressive genius decides driverless vehicles should have Internet-based governors on them. For your own good, of course.

RELATED: Dan Mitchell make this part of his question of the week – “What’s More Worrisome, Big Brother Monitoring Where You Drive or Big Brother Controlling How You Drive?”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

Minor or not, he should be executed

September 2, 2013

In 2009, the United States Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for anyone who committed a crime otherwise eligible for death prior to the age of 18.

This case shows why they were wrong:

De’Marquis Elkins now faces life in prison. At the time of the shooting, he was 17 – too young to face the death penalty under the state law.

Another youth, 15-year-old Dominique Lang, is to be tried later.

During the trial, prosecutors said Elkins shot Antonio Santiago in an attempted robbery. The killing sent shockwaves across America.

The jury in the town of Marietta, Georgia, found Elkins guilty of 11 counts, including two counts of felony murder and one count of malice murder on 21 March.

The shooting happened in the town of Brunswick, as Antonio Santiago was riding in a stroller pushed by his mother, Sherry West.

She told the court that her son was shot in the face and she was shot in the leg by Elkins after she refused to hand over her purse.

She said she told the assailants that she did not have any money and tried to shield her son, before shots rang out near her home.

“He asked me for money and I said I didn’t have it,” Ms West said, as she wept in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this year.

Someone kindly explain to me how Elkins committing this atrocity one day after his 18th birthday makes it okay to sentence him to death, but not if he was one day shy of it. Or even a week, a month, or a year.

The fact is we designate as “children” people who in other cultures and in earlier ages would have been old enough to fulfill the responsibilities of an adult: to own land, raise a family, participate in politics, fight as warriors, and to know right from wrong.

But, as we’ve “progressed,” we’ve lengthened the time of childhood and legal incompetency well past the point where it makes sense.

Somewhere around their 15th-16th year, “children” should know enough to know that killing a baby is wrong, among the most horrible things one can do. The killer should not be given special leniency because “he’s only a boy.” Not at that point. The law should be able to impose death for horrific crimes committed by those close to the age of majority, based on a jury’s weighing of the evidence.

Sherry West’s baby is dead, while Elkins is protected from paying the ultimate and just price for what he did. That’s not justice.

That’s just wrong.

via Tommy Hearn

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)