>ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant

Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?

One time, I was in a shopping mall and I had filled my cart at Target. I checked out, and proceeded to the parking lot where I was supposed to meet a Waymo. I had arranged for it to pick me up in the designated "Ride Share/Taxi Pickup Area" which was quite near the Target, but across the "street" and next to the cluster of bus stops.

I passed an obvious and ominous sign that indicated the border of the "shopping cart zone" and immediately my cart's wheels locked up! I was mortified, because I knew it'd do that! But my Waymo's over there, man! What was I supposed to do about it?

Obviously, Target has every right to corral their carts in places where they can go retrieve them. Theft is a huge, huge problem. But I was also constrained in pickup areas and I had figured, innocently, that the "Designated Ride Share" zone was the correct place to meet a Waymo with groceries.

So I had to bail everything out of the cart, and carry by hand. I learned my lesson. Only drop the Waymo pin someplace where my cart won't be kill-switched!

That exits essentially for aircraft today, albeit not automated. Try flying your little Cessna too close to the capitol mall or any number of sites in the world. You’ll very quickly and very unceremoniously be intercepted by other aircraft with big guns telling you to get the hell out.

> Some of this is over-the-top paranoia. If ICE wants to get into your car, they'll just break the window.

Then when I get to my car I can see the broken window and report it or at least know someone broke into my car. With remote entry law enforcement or ice can get in and out potentially without notice.

Just because police/ice/thieves/etc can break down my door and enter my house does not mean I am on board with giving any of them a key.

> It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle.

You do have a right to ownership though if it’s paid in full and you have the title. If I fully own my vehicle but someone else can control or disable it remotely then they are tampering with my personal property.

>It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. It's something you are permitted to do under the terms of a license, and it's fairly regulated (though not as much as in some other countries).

Sure you do, in private nobody can be prevented. You need a license and insurance to drive on public roads.

ICE has to be near your car to shoot the tires out, but not to remote disable.

Having vehicle override would be an extremely concerning capability. (If confirmed)

Your take on “rights” if wrong to the point of insanity. You literally don’t know what rights are and should stop talking.

[flagged]

You underestimate both the capacity of an armed citizenry and the hardware that we have at our disposal.

There are in fact privately owned tanks in the US.

Tell that to the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, the Viet Cong, Mao, and George Washington.

Just because the government has tanks does not mean "we have tanks and nukes, therefore we'll win" has proven true across military history.

Our local municipality has (in the distant past) made all of the business park on-street parking into "no parking" zones. They also heavily enforce parking regulations in the area during actions...

Cities have parking. And passengers can exit a car without the driver.

Entirely this.

I have a wonderful cargo bike (urban arrow - splurge purchase for my 35th birthday and second kid) - I use it for most in-city transportation tasks, including picking up kids from daycare/school, groceries, trips to restaurants, etc.

I also have a 2011 truck with ~200k miles on it. It's well take care of, and shows no signs of stopping any time soon. It hauls stuff from home improvement stores, help family move, and takes us on vacation.

I've been debating getting bumper stickers for each of them along the lines of:

"My other ebike is a truck" - for the bike

and

"My other truck is an ebike" - for the truck

I had such an older vehicle until a couple weeks ago when the fuel tank supports rusted to the point the tank wasn't supported. There was just more maintenance needed than I had time to do - it would cost about what I paid for a modern 3 year old vehicle just to get it running and who knows what it will need next year from parts I wouldn't replace. (the new car is also electric so much cheaper to drive, though it doesn't have the capacity of the 1 ton truck it replaced so I'm stuck when I need that)

Transportation influences urban development. That is why most houses have a garage. There is no such thing as private transport (streets are public). Transportation has been heavily centralized since the New Deal. The bicycle was okay for most people living in cities in the 30s, now it is not because the government has favored the car infrastructure over the last decades. I think we need to start with not letting government develop their big infrastructure projects which are not resilient. Advocating for the use of bicycles might make sense in some places yet bicycle infrastructure is required.

I dunno, I live in what most people would call peak Suburbia and have all sorts of bike trails I didn’t even know existed until I got the electric assisted bike, I can range 5 miles away from my house in any direction without having to be on any major roads, and have a trailer for doing grocery shopping. I went 15 miles away and back one time but took quite awhile. All the grocery stores I frequent are within this range. When it’s warm out, I use my bike for probably 90% of my trips out of the house.

Beg to differ, they're viable for basically all local use cases...

Groceries? Yep. School? Yep. Commuting? Yep. Etc.

They aren't viable for hauling multi-ton loads, or covering long distances, that's about it.

Almost all? I think most car trips could have been bike trips.

What?

A vehicle (presumably a car, since bikes are vehicles too) gets you and your stuff from point A to point B. Bikes do that too, though at a smaller scale.

If your commute or your errands aren't excessively long or require the use of a controlled-access highway, a bike's a perfectly fine alternative. The limiting factors are seasonal road or bike path maintenance and the discipline of other road users.

[dead]

As of 2023 municipalities and counties can no longer mandate bicycle registration. (See https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-veh/division-16... as amended by sec. 7 at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...) Though universities, like UC Davis, might still be able to require it for bikes on campus.

I hadn't heard of the requirement before. Mandatory registration originally seems to have been intended to address bike theft. All bicycles sold in California must have a serial number. A significant number of cities (most?) had ordinances requiring registration. But few people knew about it and even fewer registered their bikes.

I was visiting my parent's home recently and driving their new car. Was driving down a road and there was some debris in my lane, so I started to steer to the outside of the lane to avoid hitting it, and the car decided to apply counter steering input to keep me in my lane, pushing me back towards the debris, ignoring my commanded steering input. The fact that stuff like this exists and is common now and is wildly accepted is absolutely insane to me.

I wouldn't describe myself as libertarian. To make a libertarian strawman, such a strawman might claim that all safety features in cars ought to be provided by the free market. Of course, the predictable outcome is that most people won't prioritize safety in cars, so cars that spend their production budget on non-safety features will outsell those that spend on safety features, leading to at best a niche market for safety cars.

So no, I don't think any libertarian is OK with being forced to do almost anything, in principle. The very idea that you'd need to wear seatbelts or have a license or be compelled to have insurance or not have an open bottle of vodka in your cup holder is anathema. The free market should simply operate through the courts and put those that can't drink responsibly and cover the damage they cause into debtors prisons, to continue the strawman.

I would actually prefer much stricter enforcement of insurance and licensing laws, akin to say, the UK or Germany. I don't think you need hardware interlocks to do it, but you would have to have police willing to actually pull over people with fake license plates or missing insurance. That is not the case in much of California.