Politicians from California’s Ruling Party make clear they want to get Golden State drivers out of their cars and into government transportation. The state’s own policies explicitly aim to reduce car ownership, and now it appears if they can’t persuade enough drivers, they’ll just make the experience more annoying until people give up.
I got a taste of this next-level government-imposed nuisance while visiting Germany over the holidays to visit my family. The rental car agency provided me with a nice new government-compliant Audi A6.
And it was the most obnoxious driving experience I’ve ever had.
In a preview of the new California law which will require mandatory beeping whenever one drives over the posted speed limit, the German-compliant Audi would immediately and incessantly start beeping whenever my speed exceeded the most recent speed limit sign by as little as 1 km/hr.
This would be fine, but for the fact that the system doesn’t take into account that speed limit signs were never intended to provide the level of granular micromanagement of drivers that is now being forced upon anyone who gets behind the wheel of a new car.
For instance, when pulling into a rest stop, the posted speed limit is low. Yet when pulling out, the car assumes the low speed limit which applied when pulling in still applies. So, upon accelerating to highway speed, the car started its obnoxious beeping. Similar annoyances were experienced when entering or exiting construction zones.
.A recent study by the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) found that drivers often disable or ignore ISA systems altogether due to their intrusive nature, raising questions about their actual effectiveness in promoting safety. It turns out that when the enforcement of regulations becomes this strict, drivers tune it out altogether if they can’t find a way to rip the technology out.
Audi provided no easy way to disable the second most obnoxious feature: steering override.
Lane-keeping assistance systems, strongly encouraged by politicians in the United States and the European Union, are another example of a well-intentioned feature gone awry. These systems aim to prevent unintended lane departures by nudging the steering wheel when the vehicle approaches lane markers. However, the technology often misinterprets the road, particularly in construction zones, poorly marked highways, or onramp/offramp situations.
During the same trip in Germany, the lane-keeping “assistant” in my rental car repeatedly wrestled control from me in construction zones, attempting to steer the car into barriers due to misread lane markings. Instead of helping and working for the driver, the system actively endangered both me and the surrounding traffic.
Data supports the idea that overreliance on lane-keeping systems can lead to a dangerous phenomenon known as risk compensation, where drivers trust the system too much and pay less attention to the road. A 2018 study by the American Automobile Association (AAA) found that drivers with lane-keeping assist were twice as likely to engage in distracted driving behaviors compared to those without the feature.
The third most annoying example of government nannying in the driver’s seat is the auto start/stop feature.
My experience with this feature in the Audi was particularly infuriating. The system shut off the engine before the car even came to a full stop, causing awkward jolts. Additionally, the default setting reverted to “on” every time the car was restarted, requiring me to manually disable it on each drive. The irony? While the car “remembered” trivial preferences like seat heater settings, it stubbornly imposed this regulatory mandate every time.
Studies show that the fuel savings from these start/stop systems are often overstated. According to research by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the real-world savings amount to just 1-2% under optimal conditions. Meanwhile, frequent engine restarts can increase wear and tear on key components, including starters and batteries, leading to higher maintenance costs for drivers.
An often-overlooked consequence of mandated safety features is the phenomenon of risk compensation. It turns out that drivers adjust their behavior in response to perceived increases in safety, often by taking greater risks. Numerous studies have documented this effect:
Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS): A 2004 study published in the Journal of Risk and Uncertainty found that drivers of vehicles equipped with ABS tended to drive faster and follow other vehicles more closely, effectively nullifying the safety benefits of the system.
Seat Belts: A landmark study by economist Sam Peltzman in the 1970s showed that the introduction of seat belt laws did not result in proportional reductions in fatalities. Instead, drivers compensated for the increased safety by driving more aggressively.
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS): More recent research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) indicates that features like lane-keeping assistance and adaptive cruise control can encourage complacency and inattentiveness, leading to more accidents in certain scenarios.
I’m all for ABS brakes, seat belts, and other driver assistance systems. Yet — risk compensation highlights a critical flaw in government micromanagement of drivers: By imposing safety features without considering human behavior, governments encourage the very risk-taking they aim to prevent.
The Bigger Picture: A Loss of Freedom
Increasingly, drivers serve the car, rather than the car serving the driver. The examples above are part of a larger trend: Governments are using regulations to exert increasing micro-level control over how we drive. EV mandates are yet another facet of this agenda. By phasing out internal combustion engines and relying on centralized power grids, governments gain a powerful tool to control mobility. Remote shutdowns, geofencing, and charging restrictions are just some of the ways EVs could be used to limit individual freedom under the guise of environmentalism and safety.
A Call to Action
Cars have always symbolized freedom—the ability to go where you want, when you want, without interference. But with each new mandate, that freedom erodes. It’s time to push back against this overreach. Republicans need to be the voice of reason to balance safety and environmental concerns with preserving the autonomy of drivers. That starts with making these systems optional, not mandatory, and allowing drivers to retain full control over their vehicles.
Rather than constantly knuckling under to the politicians and bureaucrats, manufacturers should advocate for practical solutions that prioritize real-world conditions over regulatory box-ticking. And drivers must begin to hold elected officials accountable for regulations that prioritize control over common sense.
The creeping control of governments over our mobility is more than an inconvenience; it’s a warning. The question isn’t whether we’ll be safe or environmentally conscious—it’s whether we’ll still have the freedom to make those choices ourselves.
Ron Nehring served as the 72nd Chairman of the California Republican Party, from 2007 to 2011. He was the Republican nominee for Lt. Governor of California in 2014, and Presidential Campaign Spokesman for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in 2016.