Disabled
© ericpetersautos.com
Imagine if you were pretty much obliged to buy a cane or a walker in order to be allowed to walk in public. Never mind you don't need a cane or a walker to assist you walking. Well, this is basically the situation with regard to new vehicles. You are able to drive - the state affirms this, having issued you a license to drive that at least nominally is only issued to people who have established a basic minimum level of competence to drive - yet the vehicle is layered with what is styled "driver assistance technology."

Walker
© ericpetersautos.com
This implies you need it. Which implies you're actually not competent to drive unassisted. So why the bother over licensing drivers? (Well, we know why. The driver's license is really just an ID - and the state very much wants you to have to carry ID around - and show it. It establishes who's boss - and who isn't.)

These "technologies" are not like seat belts or air bags that are purely impact-force mitigation systems that are designed to reduce the severity of injury (as well as the chance you'll be killed) in the event of a crash. You can argue with some force that it is none of the government's legitimate business to effectively compel people to purchase air bags or seat belts - for basically the same reason that it's none of the government's legitimate business whether we eat our veggies. I think that because this argument wasn't made - not effectively, at any rate - we now have "driver assistance technology" in our cars. Because the underlying idea that it is the government's legitimate business to "keep us safe" (not from government's depredations, of course) underlies all of this stuff.

If you are not competent to decide whether to wear a seatbelt - and especially if you decide not to wear one - then obviously you are someone who is in need of the kind of "assistance" government provides, which is always as compulsory as it is cloying. That is why in just a few months from now - as the 2027 model year begins - every new vehicle will be required to have an additional layer of "assistance technology," in the form of what's styled "distracted/drowsy driver" monitoring systems. The requirement was passed into law about five years ago and now - like a septic tank that's gone overfull - the shit is percolating upward.

Monitoring
© ericpetersautos.com
The vehicle manufacturers have been quietly installing the eye-movement monitoring systems that are the key element of this new "technology" for several years now. They have been doing this in anticipation of the requirement as well as to get people used to it a little at a time rather than all of a sudden. This is the same method that was used to get people used to earlier forms of "assistance technology" such as the obnoxious Lane Keep Assist system that jerks the steering wheel when the "technology" thinks you need "assistance" keeping the car in its travel lane. And Brake Assist - which slams on the brakes when the "technology" thinks you haven't noticed the car ahead of you is slowing and you haven't braked soon enough or hard enough for the "technology's" liking.

Focus
© ericpetersautos.com
There is also the "technology" many new vehicles have that prevents you from backing up with the driver's door open (which you might want to do to see what's behind you or how close you're getting to the curb using your own eyes rather than relying on camera eyes). The "technology" will "assist" you by putting the transmission in Park.

All of this goes back decades - in terms of the gradual, piece-by-piece pushing of "technology" on people by making it impossible to avoid it, except by avoiding new vehicles. Do you remember when the earliest forms of "assistance" began appearing way back in the '80s? First there was anti-lock brakes; they went from being available in some vehicles to de facto standard in all vehicles. This probably seemed ok to most people but when you think about it, the underlying assumption is that the possibility of a skid resulting from brake lock arising from a driver not being skilled/experienced enough to
Safety
© ericpetersautos.com
know how to avoid locking up the brakes and thereby avoiding the skid had to be eliminated by presuming every driver needed assistance to avoid such skids.

Then came traction/stability control "technology." Both predicated on the same assumptions and accepted as such by most people. Having accepted the principle - far more important that the particular - it became inevitable we'd end up with "technology" that literally watches us at all times and corrects us at all times. We're now just a few months away from that being not just standard but formally required.

It's actually remarkable that people who can walk unaided aren't also required to buy canes and walkers. After all, there are people who need "assistance" with walking. Just as there are people who need "assistance" with driving. Why not just assume everyone needs "assistance" - in all things?

We'd all be so much safer, then.