Re:Oakland bans the use of combustion engine-powered leaf bl...
by rsj_hn on Friday March 05, 2021 @08:58PM
(#26364542)
We do indeed see infotainment systems in cars that are the direct analogues of cell phones and cause distracted driving. They even connect to the phones and give similar touch screen apps.
These systems are legal but using the phone is not, so this really is a great example of trying to regulate technology rather than outcomes. All that happens is vendors put ports in their cars and route the phone interface to the driver in a fixed screen rather than in the phone's screen. Regulation bypassed.
Slippery slope arguments shouldn’t apply to specific provisions in the law that target likely scenarios.
Let’s say you said that the driver shouldn’t drive distracted. You have now outlawed listening to radio, music, or others talking in a way not conducive to giving full attention to the car, perhaps even while the car is being driven automatically, if there is any chance of the driver needing to drive manually such that they must be ready to drive.
That said, I agree that the method of generating the outcome need not always be defined. For example, in some legislation, companies/vendors are named specifically, which may lead to de facto support by the government of some private institutions, which seems anticompetitive.