@ISIDEWITHQuestionstransportationStarted 9mos agoActive 6 days ago

Should the government restrict the use of advanced technology in vehicles to maintain human control and prevent over-reliance on technology?

This considers limiting the integration of advanced technologies in vehicles to ensure humans retain control and to prevent dependency on technological systems. Proponents argue that it preserves human control and prevents over-reliance on potentially fallible technology. Opponents argue that it hinders technological progress and the benefits that advanced technology can bring to safety and efficiency.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 13.2k America voters.

46%
Yes
54%
No
46%
Yes
54%
No

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 13.2k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 13.2k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from America voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9RDKXM8 from California  answered…7mos7MO

No, but the government should still require manual driving in case there is a technology malfunction.

 @9NCVR3Kfrom Virginia  answered…8mos8MO

Yes, or else the cause of accidents will be defended as “technological errors” instead of human negligence.

 @9TRVT2F  from California  answered…5mos5MO

Yes, restrictions are necessary and laws need to be updated to hold companies accountable for faulty autonomous vehicles causing accidents.

 @amayerica#1  from Iowa  answered…8mos8MO

Yes, until we have a clear understanding of what the technology inhibits for us to completely rely on it.

 @9TQ2NYH from New Jersey  answered…5mos5MO

I see both sides, I agree tech can make things safer but that we should also be careful and intentional with our use of it

 @9VJZYWB from Maryland  answered…4mos4MO

Yes, but not now. In the future this may become a bigger issue but it’s not something to worry about at the moment.

 @9TR4434 from California  answered…5mos5MO

Yes and no, because while advanced tech could be very helpful in the cases of disabled drivers, this could lead to tech malfunctions and possible disaster. It might make driving significantly safer though, as some people are bad at driving.

 @B2RKPXF from Utah  answered…1wk1W

No, but competence checks without the aid of the technology for those operating those vehicles should be held.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6 days6D

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…5 days5D

Congress Calls Trump's Gaza Plan "Bizarre And Incoherent"

Trump proposed unprecedented U.S. control of Gaza Strip during a White House press conference with Netanyahu, suggesting "long-term ownership" that could last 10-15 years.The plan calls for nearly two million Palestinian residents to permanently relocate to neighboring countries, marking a dramatic shift from decades of U.S. policy.Congressional leaders from both parties expressed skepticism, with even Trump ally Lindsey Graham calling the proposal "problematic."Middle East experts, including former Palestinian Authority advisor Khaled Elgindy, criticized the plan as "bizarre and incoherent."White House officials argue mass relocation is the only viable option and seek to convince Egypt and Jordan to accept displaced Palestinians.The administration estimates Gaza reconstruction would take 10-15 years, far longer than the 3-5 years outlined in cease-fire agreements.The proposal lacks clear details on how to handle Palestinian resistance to relocation or potential U.S. military deployment.Saudi Arabia immediately rejected the plan, stating it wouldn't normalize ties with Israel without a clear path to Palestinian statehood.Trump expressed uncertainty about the current cease-fire's durability while presenting his proposal.The plan faces significant implementation challenges and could complicate other regional objectives, including Israel-Saudi normalization efforts.

▲  2421 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2 days2D

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies