Potentially controversial take -- we've been making, and continue to make, decisions that in aggregate prioritize private car ownership as the default transportation mode, and this has resulted in limiting our freedom of movement, and will continue to limit it.

I have a car, and I enjoy a good road trip. I think cars are fantastic for inter-city transportation, especially with a family. But objectively, I have less practical freedom of movement today when I live in the suburbs than when I was younger and lived in NYC. Having a car is not optional for my current situation -- I cannot run any errands without a car, and can get to very few places of interest without one, and it is outright dangerous to be on foot in many parts. If my car is unavailable to me for whatever reason, I'm very inhibited in my movements.

When I lived in the city, by contrast, I had a many options for errands and fun within a 15 minute walk, and most of the rest of city available to me via bus or subway.

As cars become increasingly complex - especially as they start to become "connected" -- being car-dependent means our freedom of movement becomes even more vulnerable. My general feeling with this story on kill switches is skepticism that it's a good idea, but I feel that if people are really concerned about freedom of movement, they need to be thinking more broadly about how we've made it so difficult for a person to freely move around with just their own two feet.