If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   The NTSB wants cars to have mandatory collision avoidance systems, which will bankrupt automakers just like seat belts, airbags, and anti-lock brakes did   (blogs.wsj.com) divider line 137
    More: Interesting, National Transportation Safety Board, gears, Transportation Safety Board, rulemaking process, National Highway  
•       •       •

2433 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2012 at 11:09 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-15 03:23:28 AM  
..........mandatory collision avoidance system,..........

Didn't that used to be called a "driver" back in the old days ?
 
2012-11-15 04:55:20 AM  
The only piece of new equipment needed is a cellphone signal jammer in each car.
 
2012-11-15 06:19:10 AM  
that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.
 
2012-11-15 08:52:40 AM  

Elvis_Bogart: The only piece of new equipment needed is a cellphone signal jammer in each car.


Are you going to tie women's hands to the wheel so they don't apply make-up while doing 80 in the center lane?
 
2012-11-15 11:12:54 AM  

colinspooky: ..........mandatory collision avoidance system,..........

Didn't that used to be called a "driver" back in the old days ?


When were these good old days before car accidents? Back when we had horse and buggies?
 
2012-11-15 11:14:12 AM  
"If we had this equipment, we could theoretically eliminate 60% of the highway accidents," board member Robert Sumwalt said. That is the share of highway accidents involving rear-end collisions, lane-change maneuvers and vehicles running off the road.

I have faith in my fellow Americans that we can re-up our level of distracted driving and reduce that number.
 
2012-11-15 11:14:40 AM  
Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.
 
2012-11-15 11:15:42 AM  
Wait...weren't automakers going bankrupt?

I thought we had to bail them out.....
 
2012-11-15 11:16:06 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Are you going to tie women's hands to the wheel so they don't apply make-up while doing 80 in the center lane on the shoulder?

 
2012-11-15 11:16:07 AM  

Carth: colinspooky: ..........mandatory collision avoidance system,..........

Didn't that used to be called a "driver" back in the old days ?

When were these good old days before car accidents? Back when we had horse and buggies?


Ignoramus.
 
2012-11-15 11:17:36 AM  

Rapmaster2000: "If we had this equipment, we could theoretically eliminate 60% of the highway accidents," board member Robert Sumwalt said. That is the share of highway accidents involving rear-end collisions, lane-change maneuvers and vehicles running off the road.

I have faith in my fellow Americans that we can re-up our level of distracted driving and reduce that number.


And Im sure it will be the most reliable piece of equipment on the car with nary a recall. Coulda used one at the end of sept, stupid old man running a stop sign.
 
2012-11-15 11:17:44 AM  

Elvis_Bogart: The only piece of new equipment needed is a cellphone signal jammer in each car.


Which works great until you need to call 911 or AAA and your signal is jammed by passing cars.
 
2012-11-15 11:17:47 AM  

sithon: that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.


Well. If you were going to crash the car. Maybe you need to have the wheel jerked away from you. If only for the sake of whatever or whoever you're about to hit.

Purists resist vehicle automation. I ask why we're not there already? Cell phone use. Tail gating. Road rage. Not using signals. Vehicular manslaughter. DUIs. I don't care if you're an expert driver who can ace the time trials at Laguna Seca. Back in reality, a great many people have proven themselves incapable of piloting a vehicle. You encounter them on the road every day, and some day one of them might kill you because they stubbornly insisted they could pilot a machine better than a computer.

I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.
 
2012-11-15 11:19:13 AM  
This is going to need to be a very advanced system as avoiding 1 collision most times involves getting into another.
 
2012-11-15 11:19:36 AM  
It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.
 
2012-11-15 11:19:44 AM  

This text is now purple: FirstNationalBastard: Are you going to tie women's hands to the wheel so they don't apply make-up while doing 80 in the center lane on the shoulder farking everywhere while on a cellphone?

 
2012-11-15 11:19:58 AM  
If it will also stream porn when it isn't helping me avoid a collision, I'm okay with this.
 
2012-11-15 11:20:44 AM  

Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.


Moving a 2-ton steel box requires just a little more energy than electrifying a few circuit boards.
 
2012-11-15 11:21:46 AM  

bittermang: sithon: that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.

Well. If you were going to crash the car. Maybe you need to have the wheel jerked away from you. If only for the sake of whatever or whoever you're about to hit.

Purists resist vehicle automation. I ask why we're not there already? Cell phone use. Tail gating. Road rage. Not using signals. Vehicular manslaughter. DUIs. I don't care if you're an expert driver who can ace the time trials at Laguna Seca. Back in reality, a great many people have proven themselves incapable of piloting a vehicle. You encounter them on the road every day, and some day one of them might kill you because they stubbornly insisted they could pilot a machine better than a computer.

I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.


This. We have around 30,000 deaths a year due to auto accidents. If that many Americans died in a year due to a terrorist attack we'd be spending billions to stop it from ever happening again.
 
2012-11-15 11:21:54 AM  
Maybe we should just make an auto pilot system for cars.

/ it would potentially reduce accidents by 1,000,000%
 
2012-11-15 11:22:16 AM  
I'm all for sensors in the front of the car that keep people from rear-ending, auto-adjust cruise control, and back off the accelerator when a car gets too close for the speed it's going.

It would make everyone's commute more pleasant, excepting that guy who has to be three inches of everyone's bumper.

Vibrating the seat or wheel when you try to turn into another car or drift off the road is nice as well.

Face it, computers are just better drivers than people. Google's car has proven it, and now the only technical problem is shrinking it. It's no longer a matter of if, but when.
 
2012-11-15 11:24:07 AM  

netcentric: Wait...weren't automakers going bankrupt?

I thought we had to bail them out.....


Didn't you hear? GM is alive in the hands of the unions and in debt to US tax payers and Chrysler paid back their gov't bailout with a gov't grant.

But we got Bin Laden!
 
2012-11-15 11:25:06 AM  

dittybopper: It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.


Except some cars already have them and they do work. They make you less likely to get into a car accident and less likely to be injured in those that do happen.
 
2012-11-15 11:25:17 AM  

Carth: bittermang: sithon: that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.

Well. If you were going to crash the car. Maybe you need to have the wheel jerked away from you. If only for the sake of whatever or whoever you're about to hit.

Purists resist vehicle automation. I ask why we're not there already? Cell phone use. Tail gating. Road rage. Not using signals. Vehicular manslaughter. DUIs. I don't care if you're an expert driver who can ace the time trials at Laguna Seca. Back in reality, a great many people have proven themselves incapable of piloting a vehicle. You encounter them on the road every day, and some day one of them might kill you because they stubbornly insisted they could pilot a machine better than a computer.

I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.

This. We have around 30,000 deaths a year due to auto accidents. If that many Americans died in a year due to a terrorist attack we'd be spending billions to stop it from ever happening again.


If only a tenth of that number died in a terrorist attack, we'd definitely spend billions and declare a war on automobile accidents.
 
2012-11-15 11:26:27 AM  
I was hoping that new car prices were going to jump by $5k!
 
2012-11-15 11:26:59 AM  

Carth: dittybopper: It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.

Except some cars already have them and they do work. They make you less likely to get into a car accident and less likely to be injured in those that do happen.


Well, see, the problem is I can have this system, and I can avoid colliding with something in front of me, but the jerkoff behind me who has been riding my ass for the last 20 miles might not have the system installed, so I'm still farked.
 
2012-11-15 11:27:14 AM  

iheartscotch: Maybe we should just make an auto pilot system for cars.

/ it would potentially reduce accidents by 1,000,000%


It has already happened and approved for trial use by California.
 
2012-11-15 11:29:42 AM  
I drive a semi that already has one and its benefits far outweigh the annoyances. Auto adjusting cruise and auto braking. Plus lane warning with a loud buzzer if you drift out of your lane without a turn signal on. It's saved me plenty of grief. I am all for every vehicle being required to have them!
 
2012-11-15 11:29:56 AM  

bittermang: sithon: that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.

Well. If you were going to crash the car. Maybe you need to have the wheel jerked away from you. If only for the sake of whatever or whoever you're about to hit.


Purists resist vehicle automation. I ask why we're not there already? Cell phone use. Tail gating. Road rage. Not using signals. Vehicular manslaughter. DUIs. I don't care if you're an expert driver who can ace the time trials at Laguna Seca. Back in reality, a great many people have proven themselves incapable of piloting a vehicle. You encounter them on the road every day, and some day one of them might kill you because they stubbornly insisted they could pilot a machine better than a computer.

I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.

As someone who writes software for a living, and has done so for a couple decades now, that is a really, really, *REALLY* bad idea. It's one thing for an airplane in a relatively open and unobstructed sky to run on autopilot, while being monitored by a seasoned professional.

It's quite another for a distracted housewife to be sitting in a car and yelling at the kids while updating social media on her customized iNail finger-tip device.

If you spend the time and effort to make the software reliable enough to actually use it, meaning testing at all levels and integration validation, etc., testing it by
 
2012-11-15 11:30:17 AM  
In an emergency situation, the absolute last thing I want is the vehicle telling me it knows better than I do how to react.

The vehicles with steering that reacts differently depending on conditions is another horrible idea. Turning the steering wheel should give you the same reaction on your wheels every time, not more or less depending on speed or whether the system thinks it's icy.
 
2012-11-15 11:30:35 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Carth: dittybopper: It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.

Except some cars already have them and they do work. They make you less likely to get into a car accident and less likely to be injured in those that do happen.

Well, see, the problem is I can have this system, and I can avoid colliding with something in front of me, but the jerkoff behind me who has been riding my ass for the last 20 miles might not have the system installed, so I'm still farked.


I agree. That is the reason they should be mandated to make sure everyone has them. The fact that people who are currently using them, on roads where not everyone else has one, and already get in fewer accidents makes me think you won't be any more at risk than you currently are during the transition.
 
2012-11-15 11:31:15 AM  

Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.


No, it just means you need to cut back on that 250hp grocery getter.
 
2012-11-15 11:32:02 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Are you going to tie women's hands to the wheel so they don't apply make-up while doing 80 in the center lane?


Shhh, you'll piss off the farkettes.
 
2012-11-15 11:34:06 AM  
News Flash: Modern humans unable to cope with driving anylonger due to more important things to do while behind the wheel. Technology to compensate again.

Perhaps this IS a good idea, but from my perspective it's just another control: "Welcome to Jhonny Cab! Please state your Destination and insert your permission card!"

I've got somewhere around a half million miles behind the wheel. Last time I hit another car with mine was 1979...

/Why no, I rarely make phone calls while driving
 
2012-11-15 11:34:29 AM  
www.ionroad.com
 
2012-11-15 11:35:28 AM  

Wile_E_Canuck: In an emergency situation, the absolute last thing I want is the vehicle telling me it knows better than I do how to react.

The vehicles with steering that reacts differently depending on conditions is another horrible idea. Turning the steering wheel should give you the same reaction on your wheels every time, not more or less depending on speed or whether the system thinks it's icy.


The purpose of collision avoidance systems is to prevent emergency situations from happening, not tell you what do to in an emergency. If a system could tell you that there is not enough room to change lanes, that you are drifting off the road, or that you are in danger of rear-ending the car in front of you, I think you'd find this useful. Most of the highway accidents (60% according to the NTSB) are due to these three mistakes and all of them are due to a lack of effective attention. We all get distracted sometimes when we drive and systems such as this could be a big help. I think the cost of such systems would be offset by lower auto insurance rates.
 
2012-11-15 11:35:45 AM  
driving is going to get very boring in the future

i.ytimg.com
 
2012-11-15 11:35:49 AM  

bittermang: However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.


Humans do not tend to consider themselves part of the systems which they operate. When human error occurs, it is counted in a separate category from system error. Hence, a human operated vehicle has very little system error, since only a mechanical failure that directly precipitates an accident is system error.

By removing human error and replacing it with automated driving, the number of system errors will increase.

But that's a bad way of counting system errors. Humans are part of the system, and not counting human errors as system errors is wrong.
 
2012-11-15 11:36:49 AM  
Also, if this doesn't add to car initial cost the manufacturers will up the price tag anyways.

Maybe lower fuel costs and significantly lower insurance costs though. Also longer economic service life for vehicles which in itself saves money.
 
2012-11-15 11:37:56 AM  
Until you finally realize this has nothing to do with you, and has to do entirely with the safety of the insurance industry's bottom line

No car collisions

Yet your rates will go up

How dat happen, Grammy?
 
2012-11-15 11:38:09 AM  

JackieRabbit: iheartscotch: Maybe we should just make an auto pilot system for cars.

/ it would potentially reduce accidents by 1,000,000%

It has already happened and approved for trial use by California.


My sarcasm generator must be on the fritz.

The majority of people won't ever turn over complete control of a car to a computer. What happens if the manufacturer pushes an update when I'm asleep, traveling 90 mph?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-15 11:38:31 AM  

inner ted: driving is going to get very boring in the future

[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]


Good. Computers can't suck at driving as much as people do. Besides, what do you think is going to happen when people get wearable displays and can watch You tube while driving?
 
2012-11-15 11:38:33 AM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.

Moving a 2-ton steel box requires just a little more energy than electrifying a few circuit boards.


In aggregate, if it only reduces fuel economy by 0.01%, it will still cost ((208million*12,000milespervehicle)/25mpg) * $3.75 per gallon * 0.01% = $37.44 million dollars a year in extra gas costs, and it will add ((208million*12,000milespervehicle)/25mpg) * 19.4lbs * 0.01% = 193,7 million pounds of extra CO2 into the air per year, contributing to global warming.

Why do you hate the planet, and average working stiffs just trying to get to their job?
 
2012-11-15 11:40:28 AM  

t3knomanser: But that's a bad way of counting system errors. Humans are part of the system, and not counting human errors as system errors is wrong.


Damn, I love the PEBKAC defense.
 
2012-11-15 11:42:31 AM  
So if I'm involved in a collision, does Bill Gates get the ticket?
 
2012-11-15 11:43:56 AM  
My poor Jeep would be illegal to manufacture these days... It's just too damn deadly.

... Although it hasn't had a single mishap in more than 200K miles.
 
2012-11-15 11:44:09 AM  
Crazy talk. I prefer my car only does what I tell it to. Thankyouverymuch.
 
2012-11-15 11:44:19 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.

No, it just means you need to cut back on that 250hp grocery getter.


No: Doesn't matter if the vehicle is a full-sized Dodge EarthFarker, or HappyPlanet Mini-Cart. Adding any additional equipment to either will reduce the fuel economy of both vehicles by a small, but measurable amount. The effect will be more noticeable in the smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle, however, for a piece of safety equipment that weighs X and consumes Y amount of power.
 
2012-11-15 11:44:41 AM  
"If we had this equipment, we could theoretically eliminate 60% of the highway accidents,"

If we eliminated cars, we could theoretically eliminate 100% of the highway accidents. Call me back when you have a realistic number.

Also, 'what the hell is it doing now' gets said more often than you think regarding the auto pilot in airplanes. Cars would be MUCH MUCH worse.
 
2012-11-15 11:45:01 AM  
Done in two.
 
2012-11-15 11:45:19 AM  

johnphantom: t3knomanser: But that's a bad way of counting system errors. Humans are part of the system, and not counting human errors as system errors is wrong.

Damn, I love the PEBKAC defense.


I prefer to think of it as "operator headspace out of tolerance".
 
2012-11-15 11:45:50 AM  
A lot of wannabe John Henrys in this thread.
 
2012-11-15 11:46:29 AM  

JackieRabbit:
The purpose of collision avoidance systems is to prevent emergency situations from happening, not tell you what do to in an emergency. If a system could tell you that there is not enough room to change lanes, that you are drifting off the road, or that you are in danger of rear-ending the car in front of you, I think you'd find this useful. Most of the highway accidents (60% according to the NTSB) are due to these three mistakes and all of them are due to a lack of effective attention. We all get distracted sometimes when we drive and systems such as this could be a big help. I think the cost of such systems would be offset by lower auto insurance rates.


If it's purely informational, I'm fine with it. More people should have Gilbert Gottfried's voice screaming 'STOP TAILGATING YOU ABYSMALLY STUPID FARKWIT!" from their dashboard. I think backup cameras are an awesome idea. I just think anything that interferes with controls is a bad idea.
 
2012-11-15 11:47:25 AM  
Anyone else think this is going to cause more accidents than it prevents?
 
2012-11-15 11:48:56 AM  

colinspooky: ..........mandatory collision avoidance system,..........

Didn't that used to be called a "driver" back in the old days ?


I think my car already has that. Is it those big clear things on the sides that I can see out of?
 
2012-11-15 11:49:13 AM  
Now that more women have driver's licenses than men, this can't come soon enough.
 
2012-11-15 11:49:29 AM  

FatherChaos: Anyone else think this is going to cause more accidents than it prevents?


I don't see how. The worst observing, reasoning, and reacting part of the car is the driver. How could it get any worse?
 
2012-11-15 11:50:16 AM  
Does it sound like a missile lock warning? That'd be fantastic in a Smart Car, the beeping and flashing, while the car attempts to change direction, but it can't... The number of heart attacks caused by small dents will skyrocket. People with near misses will turn in their licenses faster than Cougar turning his wings into Commander Stinger.
 
2012-11-15 11:52:04 AM  

dittybopper: Lost Thought 00: Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.

No, it just means you need to cut back on that 250hp grocery getter.

No: Doesn't matter if the vehicle is a full-sized Dodge EarthFarker, or HappyPlanet Mini-Cart. Adding any additional equipment to either will reduce the fuel economy of both vehicles by a small, but measurable amount. The effect will be more noticeable in the smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle, however, for a piece of safety equipment that weighs X and consumes Y amount of power.


The original post was making the point that you can't have both safety and fuel economy. My point is you can but you have to sacrifice power.
 
2012-11-15 11:52:41 AM  

johnphantom: t3knomanser: But that's a bad way of counting system errors. Humans are part of the system, and not counting human errors as system errors is wrong.

Damn, I love the PEBKAC defense.


That defense, as you called it, is in fact the reason a majority of the time people are using machines they barely understand. This is why auto mechanics, doctors, IT professionals, and network engineers are so jaded.
 
2012-11-15 11:53:07 AM  

iron_city_ap: "
Also, 'what the hell is it doing now' gets said more often than you think regarding the auto pilot in airplanes. Cars would be MUCH MUCH worse.


How often it is something the human should have done but forgot? As autopilot became more ubiquitous have plane accident increased or decrease?
 
2012-11-15 11:53:14 AM  

FatherChaos: Anyone else think this is going to cause more accidents than it prevents?


I don't think it will cause more. I think it won't have any effect at all, or at best a very tiny one. That's because everyone has their own personal, subconscious risk level that they are comfortable with, and if you make a perceived activity safer, they will (subconsciously) adjust their behavior to conform to their level of risk.

If you had a 5" dagger blade pointing out of the hub of your steering wheel, would you speed or tailgate? Of course not, unless you are insanely reckless. Now take the dagger away, and replace it with an airbag. You will almost certainly drive faster, and follow closer, because your perceived risk is less.
 
2012-11-15 11:53:28 AM  

vpb: inner ted: driving is going to get very boring in the future

[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

Good. Computers can't suck at driving as much as people do. Besides, what do you think is going to happen when people get wearable displays and can watch You tube while driving?


no. not good. boring.

&
that they'd get a ticket for distracted driving just like if they use a cell phone / eat a burrito / jack off their passenger etc.
 
2012-11-15 11:54:07 AM  

Wile_E_Canuck: I just think anything that interferes with controls is a bad idea.


How do you feel about ESC?
 
2012-11-15 11:55:59 AM  

JackieRabbit: Wile_E_Canuck: In an emergency situation, the absolute last thing I want is the vehicle telling me it knows better than I do how to react.

The vehicles with steering that reacts differently depending on conditions is another horrible idea. Turning the steering wheel should give you the same reaction on your wheels every time, not more or less depending on speed or whether the system thinks it's icy.

The purpose of collision avoidance systems is to prevent emergency situations from happening, not tell you what do to in an emergency. If a system could tell you that there is not enough room to change lanes, that you are drifting off the road, or that you are in danger of rear-ending the car in front of you, I think you'd find this useful. Most of the highway accidents (60% according to the NTSB) are due to these three mistakes and all of them are due to a lack of effective attention. We all get distracted sometimes when we drive and systems such as this could be a big help. I think the cost of such systems would be offset by lower auto insurance rates
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA!
Yeah right.

 
2012-11-15 11:56:33 AM  

Lost Thought 00: dittybopper: Lost Thought 00: Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.

No, it just means you need to cut back on that 250hp grocery getter.

No: Doesn't matter if the vehicle is a full-sized Dodge EarthFarker, or HappyPlanet Mini-Cart. Adding any additional equipment to either will reduce the fuel economy of both vehicles by a small, but measurable amount. The effect will be more noticeable in the smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle, however, for a piece of safety equipment that weighs X and consumes Y amount of power.

The original post was making the point that you can't have both safety and fuel economy. My point is you can but you have to sacrifice power.


"Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy."

That's a literally true statement, and it applies to every size vehicle. Unless you *FORCE* people to not buy them by making them illegal, people will still buy Ford GaiaRapers.
 
2012-11-15 11:58:56 AM  

dittybopper: Lost Thought 00: dittybopper: Lost Thought 00: Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.

No, it just means you need to cut back on that 250hp grocery getter.

No: Doesn't matter if the vehicle is a full-sized Dodge EarthFarker, or HappyPlanet Mini-Cart. Adding any additional equipment to either will reduce the fuel economy of both vehicles by a small, but measurable amount. The effect will be more noticeable in the smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle, however, for a piece of safety equipment that weighs X and consumes Y amount of power.

The original post was making the point that you can't have both safety and fuel economy. My point is you can but you have to sacrifice power.

"Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy."

That's a literally true statement, and it applies to every size vehicle. Unless you *FORCE* people to not buy them by making them illegal, people will still buy Ford GaiaRapers.


If people could passively drive and entertain themselves otherwise, the automated driver could drive with more fuel efficiency. (See every idiot who drives a Prius over 70 mph ever)
 
2012-11-15 11:59:56 AM  

iheartscotch: Maybe we should just make an auto pilot system for cars.

/ it would potentially reduce accidents by 1,000,000%


Are you implying auto-pilot would cause an uptick in the birth rate?

Hmm, I suppose it'd make farking while driving a lot safer...
 
2012-11-15 12:01:29 PM  

tricycleracer: Wile_E_Canuck: I just think anything that interferes with controls is a bad idea.

How do you feel about ESC?


my biggest problem with ESC is that the way Toyota has implemented it: through a fly-by-wire control system, makes it impossible to feel the road through the controls. In a car with mechanical linkages I can feel when the car is going to let go well before it becomes a problem but driving my wife's Corolla I don't get that feedback from the vehicle.
 
Ehh
2012-11-15 12:01:30 PM  

netcentric: Wait...weren't automakers going bankrupt?

I thought we had to bail them out.....


So they were right about how airbags would bankrupt them!

/unions
/Ralph Nader
/anything but themselves
 
2012-11-15 12:03:43 PM  

Director_Mr: I think the cost of such systems would be offset by lower auto insurance rates
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA! Yeah right.


I many states, the rates auto insurance companies can charge is regulated by the state insurance commission. The allowable rates are set based on actual losses incurred in that state. So if losses fall significantly, insurance commissions will require a reduction in premiums. Unfortunately, several states - especially those where Republicans are in control - have abandoned insurance regulation in the last few years. But even without regulation, if a state's losses are low, insurers will voluntarily lower rates to lure customers from the competition. There are some advantages to free markets.
 
2012-11-15 12:09:54 PM  

tricycleracer: How do you feel about ESC?


I see what you're getting at with ESC, and it's probably a net benefit. Same with ABS. Anything that stops slippage is pretty much always a good thing.

What I see as the difference is it's an enhancement to the decisions the driver has made. ABS enhances a maximum effort panic stop. It doesn't hit the brakes for you. ESC keeps your wheels from losing traction when you've turned the wheel beyond where you should have. It doesn't initiate a maneuver.
 
2012-11-15 12:12:52 PM  

Carth: dittybopper: It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.

Except some cars already have them and they do work. They make you less likely to get into a car accident and less likely to be injured in those that do happen.


There are system that work very well, but they are pretty pricey. Currently they are only being install on luxury vehicles and fleet vehicles like Semis because it is easier to hide the $4000 price tag in the cost of a $100,000 car or a $250,000 truck than it is in a $12,000 econobox. The real cost is in the automatic breaking system. The systems that work well use LIDAR, basically radar, but using a laser instead of radio waves. LIDAR is expensive, over $1500 for the sensor alone and that doesn't include computer or interface with the breaking system and the throttle. There are other very inexpensive alternatives such as RADAR or SONAR based systems, but they don't work well in heavy rain or snow. They tend to see the thousands of individual drops/snowflakes as a single large stationary object in your path and lock the brakes. Lidar sees the individual drops and ignore them.

If you are a very smart engineer who wants to get obnoxiously rich design an inexpensive modular LIDAR system that can be sold for a reasonable price. There are tons of people who work in robotics and the automotive industries who would love you.
 
2012-11-15 12:14:19 PM  
The main problem will be when Skynet decides to reverse the polarity in all these automated systems and causes millions of car crashes all at once.
 
2012-11-15 12:19:22 PM  
This technology can't be rolled out too soon. I'm tired of my 47 km (1 way) commute taking 90 minutes some days because idiots will always drive like idiots and tie up the roadways with fender benders. Hell, I would PREFER that I just get into the vehicle and it would drive me to work but that isn't going to happen for a long time. Or maybe I could build a teleporter...yeah.

No one cares, but I have to commute since I can't get a job in my city in my field (and I love my job). My spouse works near home though, so moving to where my job is wouldn't help (no matter what, one of us will have to drive). There is currently no transit option for me, but they are saying that 2-way GO service will be here in a couple of years, I would still have to walk "last mile" but that isn't bad.

/dislike driving
//my 15 years of commuting notwithstanding
 
2012-11-15 12:19:42 PM  

GranoblasticMan: iheartscotch: Maybe we should just make an auto pilot system for cars.

/ it would potentially reduce accidents by 1,000,000%

Are you implying auto-pilot would cause an uptick in the birth rate?

Hmm, I suppose it'd make farking while driving a lot safer...


I was attempting to employ sarcasm; my sarcasm generator seems to be less than functional.
 
2012-11-15 12:20:56 PM  

tricycleracer: A lot of wannabe John Henrys in this thread.


So, what you are saying is, you have a thing for steel drivin' men?

/ nttawwt
 
2012-11-15 12:22:11 PM  
In the past, safety systems mandated to cars did not bankrupt the industry -- they simply passed the cost onto the general public making the price of a new car outrageously high.

In the early 70's, you could buy a new Ford Maverick for $1,999.00. Safety features consisted mainly of seat belts and doors that would not occasionally pop open when going around curves. Today, a similar car, with air bags, seat belts, crush zones, long life engines, ABS, collapsible steering columns and disk brakes will run roughly 8 to $10,000.

Also, as a result, you will not have rear wheel drive, no wing windows, headlights that are a single unit and costly to replace, no chrome bumpers, some will have no crash bars in the passenger doors and thinner metals or composites in the general shell.

Of course the engine will no longer basically self destruct around 60,000 miles, but we have the Japanese to thank for that by proving not only did this not need to be, but increased the resale value. Nor do cars begin to rust out within 30 days of rolling off the lot.

Though, you can't home tune your engine anymore with just a few tools because of cramming so much into a tiny engine compartment and all of the new electronic stuff piled in.

Your bumper is actually a bumper cover that happily cracks if impacted at any speed and costs a bundle to replace.

So, automakers often find ways to pass the costs of improvements onto you.

Consider this though. In the late 1950s, cars were built like tanks. You could roll them down a hill and still probably drive them off with a few dents -- though you'd need to hose out what remained of the passengers first. No seatbelts or any interior safety devices.
 
2012-11-15 12:22:40 PM  
I object to more expensive, unrepairable crap that will never be available anywhere but a dealer, much like airbags, ABS, and most engine computers. Your CAS took a shiat? Your car won't run without it? Please insert $3200 for $8 worth of circuits.
 
2012-11-15 12:30:32 PM  

Rik01: In the past, safety systems mandated to cars did not bankrupt the industry -- they simply passed the cost onto the general public making the price of a new car outrageously high.

In the early 70's, you could buy a new Ford Maverick for $1,999.00. Safety features consisted mainly of seat belts and doors that would not occasionally pop open when going around curves. Today, a similar car, with air bags, seat belts, crush zones, long life engines, ABS, collapsible steering columns and disk brakes will run roughly 8 to $10,000.


Funny enough $2000 in the early 70s is about $8000-10000 today after inflation. Strange how that works.
 
2012-11-15 12:33:26 PM  

Carth:
Funny enough $2000 in the early 70s is about $8000-10000 today after inflation. Strange how that works.


True, but subby's fictional car also costs $20,000+ today, not $10k

/how many new cars can you name that start at less than $15k MSRP?
//of those how many aren't complete crap
 
2012-11-15 12:33:36 PM  

iheartscotch: What happens if the manufacturer pushes an update when I'm asleep, traveling 90 mph?


I would highly doubt that they would push over-the-air updates. You'd get an update when you bring your car in for its 20K mile service. Even if they had a system for issuing emergency hotfixes over-the-air, the system would wait till the car's ignition is off before applying them. I'm sure the DOT will have rules on when and how it is all done, along with the frequency and robustness of checks needed.
 
2012-11-15 12:33:57 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Elvis_Bogart: The only piece of new equipment needed is a cellphone signal jammer in each car.

Are you going to tie women's hands to the wheel so they don't apply make-up while doing 80 in the center lane?


Back in the 80's we drove by a guy reading the newspaper on the Interstate. Propped fully open on the steering wheel. Yeah, we made lots of room between us and him.

If the technology will keep drivers from riding my bumper at 80mph when there is plenty of room to pass, it can't be all bad.
 
2012-11-15 12:37:38 PM  
Or just put the billions of dollars that this would cost over the years in to mass transit or more bike paths/lanes?

Or seriously, mandate governors on every car that won't allow them to go over 80mph.
 
2012-11-15 12:38:35 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Carth:
Funny enough $2000 in the early 70s is about $8000-10000 today after inflation. Strange how that works.

True, but subby's fictional car also costs $20,000+ today, not $10k

/how many new cars can you name that start at less than $15k MSRP?
//of those how many aren't complete crap


I can think of a dozen or so. If i had to drive one of them it would likely be the Honda fit or Nissan Sentra
 
2012-11-15 12:44:03 PM  

Gleeman:
If the technology will keep drivers from riding my bumper at 80mph when there is plenty of room to pass, it can't be all bad.


but it isn't just tailgating. It's the guy in front of you on the on-ramp who enters the highway at 45, it's the chick who decides she needs to be in the turn lane after they've already stopped at the light, it's the college kid who gets drunk and decides they need to drive home at 105 mph, it's the woman who needs to text her kids/friends/whomever in bumper to bumper traffic. In my State it takes very little more than standing in line for a while to get a driver's licence, I would argue that a real, comprehensive driving test and required drivers training would do far more to eliminate accidents than any conceivable safety feature added to a car.
 
2012-11-15 12:46:06 PM  

Carth:
/how many new cars can you name that start at less than $15k MSRP?
//of those how many aren't complete crap

I can think of a dozen or so. If i had to drive one of them it would likely be the Honda fit or Nissan Sentra


MSRP for both is more than $15K
 
2012-11-15 12:52:04 PM  

Rik01: Consider this though. In the late 1950s, cars were built like tanks. You could roll them down a hill and still probably drive them off with a few dents -- though you'd need to hose out what remained of the passengers first. No seatbelts or any interior safety devices.


I have seen enough crash test videos of older cars to have concluded that they weren't even very good tanks. The lack of crumple zones meant that any significant crash pushed the engine through the firewall, dash and eventually you.. Your legs would be severed and your face turned into mush.

Now if you took that much metal and applied modern engineering and used better alloys, then they probably would be tanks.
 
2012-11-15 12:55:21 PM  

thecpt: Also, if this doesn't add to car initial cost the manufacturers will up the price tag anyways.


Oh it will add to the price alright. This isn't the same thing as slapping a few dollars worth of material in for seat belts. All of the automated vehicles in the DARPA grand challenge needed LIDAR units that cost more than most new cars. That is just for one sensor. Automated collision avoidance at highway speeds is not cheap, or easy.
 
2012-11-15 12:58:34 PM  
When the Honda Accord has rear view cameras standard, and lane change, lane watch and front collision warning options, you know collision avoidance by itself cannot be too pricey.
 
2012-11-15 01:07:39 PM  

pkellmey: When the Honda Accord has rear view cameras standard, and lane change, lane watch and front collision warning options, you know collision avoidance by itself cannot be too pricey.


A brain transplant can't be that hard! We can transplant hearts, lungs, livers etc, so it can't be that hard! I don't know shiat about what I'm talking about!!!
 
2012-11-15 01:07:52 PM  

Carth: dittybopper: It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.

Except some cars already have them and they do work. They make you less likely to get into a car accident and less likely to be injured in those that do happen.


The IIHS's epidemiology is notoriously shaky.

There's also a first-mover effect -- people who drive the most cautiously tend to be the first to purchase things like this. Wait until everyone else tries before seeing what effect it has.
 
2012-11-15 01:08:49 PM  

HK-MP5-SD: The real cost is in the automatic breaking system.


I disagree. I used to have an old Ford Escort that had an automatic breaking system. Didn't add any cost to the vehicle. In fact, it made the vehicle's purchase price that much cheaper.
 
2012-11-15 01:11:11 PM  

Wile_E_Canuck: Anything that stops slippage is pretty much always a good thing.


Except on gravel, loose dirt, or snow-covered roads. Those surfaces use plowing for effective breaking, which ABS prevents.
 
2012-11-15 01:13:14 PM  
How about a system that activates the turn signals when the wheel is turned a minimum number of degrees?

/lude
 
2012-11-15 01:22:23 PM  

Carth: Funny enough $2000 in the early 70s is about $8000-10000 today after inflation. Strange how that works


So you're saying that we're getting more functionality for roughly the same price, adjusted for inflation? That's AMAZING. It's like we live in the future, or something.
 
2012-11-15 01:24:32 PM  

Carth: Rik01: In the past, safety systems mandated to cars did not bankrupt the industry -- they simply passed the cost onto the general public making the price of a new car outrageously high.

In the early 70's, you could buy a new Ford Maverick for $1,999.00. Safety features consisted mainly of seat belts and doors that would not occasionally pop open when going around curves. Today, a similar car, with air bags, seat belts, crush zones, long life engines, ABS, collapsible steering columns and disk brakes will run roughly 8 to $10,000.


Funny enough $2000 in the early 70s is about $8000-10000 today after inflation. Strange how that works.


You can't get a car with ABS for $10k.

A car that cost $2k in 1972 would cost $10.6k today.

You *COULD* buy something like a base model Hyundai Accent or Kia Rio for that price, but it won't have anti-lock brakes, or probably even a radio for that matter. The Ford was a much larger car, with more passenger and especially more trunk space.
 
2012-11-15 01:37:12 PM  
My only issue with all this new technology is that our vehicles have become incredibly difficult and expensive to repair. In order to properly diagnose an engine issue you need a $500 tool for your specific make, and specialized tools to even get some things apart. Not to mention that the parts themselves for these systems will be ridiculously expensive. Just wait until someone backs into your car in a parking lot and flees. That's a $1000 repair by itself if the bumper is damaged. If they manage to set off the air bags or damage the collision avoidance system, have fun with the $5000 bill and the giant jump in your insurance rates.
 
2012-11-15 01:37:54 PM  

umad: I don't know shiat about what I'm talking about!!!


OK, and do you want someone to give you a gold star for that?
 
2012-11-15 01:46:11 PM  

This text is now purple: Carth: dittybopper: It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.

Except some cars already have them and they do work. They make you less likely to get into a car accident and less likely to be injured in those that do happen.

The IIHS's epidemiology is notoriously shaky.

There's also a first-mover effect -- people who drive the most cautiously tend to be the first to purchase things like this. Wait until everyone else tries before seeing what effect it has.


So wait until everyone has one before you require everyone to have one? I'm not sure that would work.
 
2012-11-15 01:48:19 PM  

pkellmey: umad: I don't know shiat about what I'm talking about!!!

OK, and do you want someone to give you a gold star for that?


I am also not smart enough to understand when somebody is impersonating me to demonstrate my idiocy!!!
 
2012-11-15 01:50:13 PM  
It's interesting that the Auto industry chooses to claim that new requirements will bankrupt them when in reality they just pass the cost onto the consumer, and add a new margin onto the new features.

Not that I dislike corporations, I generally dont dislike them. I just wish they would use some honesty when they're crying to the public, like, "If you support this legislation, you're asking for automobiles that cost $5k more"
 
2012-11-15 01:50:31 PM  

umad: pkellmey: umad: I don't know shiat about what I'm talking about!!!

OK, and do you want someone to give you a gold star for that?

I am also not smart enough to understand when somebody is impersonating me to demonstrate my idiocy!!!


You're still avoiding the question.
 
2012-11-15 01:57:11 PM  

Suburban Decay: My only issue with all this new technology is that our vehicles have become incredibly difficult and expensive to repair. In order to properly diagnose an engine issue you need a $500 tool for your specific make, and specialized tools to even get some things apart. Not to mention that the parts themselves for these systems will be ridiculously expensive. Just wait until someone backs into your car in a parking lot and flees. That's a $1000 repair by itself if the bumper is damaged. If they manage to set off the air bags or damage the collision avoidance system, have fun with the $5000 bill and the giant jump in your insurance rates.


I think you're over-stating this. Actually, the cost of repairs has dropped substantially because of technology. Modern engines are modular in design and easier to repair. More, they are more reliable. And those diagnostic computers can safe you a lot of money by detecting potential problems before they become expensive repairs. Some makes, such as Honda and Toyota need nothing more than periodic adjustments and fluid changes in the first 100K miles.

My nephew is a mechanic and he has told me that the day is quickly approaching when he won't be needed any more. A technician can perform all but the repairs requiring an engine pull and those are quite rare these days. So he's slowly moving into restoring and working on vintage cars.
 
2012-11-15 02:07:24 PM  

Big Man On Campus: It's interesting that the Auto industry chooses to claim that new requirements will bankrupt them when in reality they just pass the cost onto the consumer,


You can only do that so much at the low end of the spectrum until you start pricing people out of new cars and into used ones. And while car makers don't make as much profit on the lower end, they sell a lot more of them. Adding a $1000 collision avoidance system to the cost of a $10k car is adding 10%. Adding the same equipment to a car that retails for $25k is only a 4% increase, and much less noticeable to the customers for $25k cars than it is for customers who buy $10k cars.
 
2012-11-15 02:08:18 PM  

pkellmey: You're still avoiding the question.


What question? The gold star thing? Sure, you deserve a gold star because you don't know what the fark you are talking about.
 
2012-11-15 02:08:40 PM  
sithon: "that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands."

yeah and people used that sort of FUD to argue against anti-lock breaks and traction control too.
Nonsense like "a good driver does better without those things".

As if a good driver would ever be in a position where they'd engage in the first place.
 
2012-11-15 02:16:52 PM  

TheTurtle: I object to more expensive, unrepairable crap that will never be available anywhere but a dealer, much like airbags, ABS, and most engine computers. Your CAS took a shiat? Your car won't run without it? Please insert $3200 for $8 worth of circuits.


We've already gone so far around that bend that it's now a non-argument. My 2012 Tacoma is one big farking piece of networked computers. Here's a list of some of the ECUs hanging off the CAN buss:

Engine Control Module
Combination Meter (dashboard gauges)
Skid control ECU
Airbag sensor assembly
Steering sensor
Yaw rate sensor

The bad news is that you can't (without some really good intel that Toyota hasn't let leak yet) muck with any firmware or parameter tweaks to modify performance. The good news is you can still do many repairs; I bet I could still change the water pump myself. In fact, most diagnosis should even be easier these days by using either an OBD-II or CAN based reader (USB interfaced to a laptop in my case) to just let the car tell you what's wrong. Of course that doesn't always work, certainly in Toyota's case since they don't publish all the proprietary PIDs and other fun stuff you can sniff on the CAN buss. I do see how it can muddy the water for your average, mechanically minded person who doesn't also happen to be into software, firmware and electronics.

Almost CSB:

A mechanical tech colleague wandered into my area asking for help deciphering some CAN buss data he'd captured from his new Dodge truck. One of the software guys here piped up "is it a Cummins Diesel? 'Cause I wrote firmware for their ECMs when I worked there." Seems Dodge uses Bosch ECMs now, so that was a bust, but oh so close.
 
2012-11-15 02:29:00 PM  

umad: pkellmey: You're still avoiding the question.

What question? The gold star thing? Sure, you deserve a gold star because you don't know what the fark you are talking about.


Ah, it's a reading problem. I guess the "you" threw you.

Here is a quote from Robert Sumwait, an NTSB board member: "Some of this technology can be done for literally just a few dollars. I don't think we're talking about adding thousands of dollars to a car." Also, in that same article: "Systems that warn drivers of an impending collision but don't automatically brake cost about $1,000 to $3,000 per vehicle depending on the features, according government estimates cited by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Systems that both warn the driver of an impending collision and apply the brakes if the driver doesn't act first, cost about $3,500, the alliance said.

Considering that the systems may be addressing 60% of reported accidents, that is a significant insurance cost savings, with initial costs for even advanced avoidance tech approximately 10% of the price of a modern vehicle. You've already paid that for tech to meet just emission standards. I guess I do deserve the gold star in this discussion after all.
 
2012-11-15 02:38:11 PM  

pkellmey: umad: pkellmey: You're still avoiding the question.

What question? The gold star thing? Sure, you deserve a gold star because you don't know what the fark you are talking about.

Ah, it's a reading problem. I guess the "you" threw you.


I guess the "impersonate" threw you

As to the rest of your nonsense, there is just a slight difference between standalone sensors that notify the driver of something and a network of integrated sensors feeding data to a computer that uses said data to perform autonomous control of the vehicle safely. So excuse me if I rely on my personal experience working in automation and with autonomous vehicles over the word of some NTSB paper pusher or an ignorant farker and his GED in engineering.
 
2012-11-15 03:16:45 PM  
Looks like Subby has both a background in engineering and business...
 
2012-11-15 03:20:02 PM  

umad: As to the rest of your nonsense, there is just a slight difference between standalone sensors that notify the driver of something and a network of integrated sensors feeding data to a computer that uses said data to perform autonomous control of the vehicle safely. So excuse me if I rely on my personal experience working in automation and with autonomous vehicles over the word of some NTSB paper pusher or an ignorant farker and his GED in engineering.


I think you've already proven your lack of education when it comes to reading. Where did I state in the original post that you responded to about autonomous control? Thanks for you input, but I think your "special" bus is waiting for you outside.
 
2012-11-15 03:33:53 PM  

pkellmey: I think you've already proven your lack of education when it comes to reading. Where did I state in the original post that you responded to about autonomous control?


Just what the fark do you think "collision avoidance system" means? It isn't some sensor that tells the driver to avoid the collision. It is a system that avoids the collision itself, i.e. autonomously.
 
2012-11-15 03:44:11 PM  
I guess the NTSB is forgetting about the study which showed lane-departure systems INCREASE the rate of crashes. IIRC correctly it was one of their own studies!
 
2012-11-15 03:45:11 PM  

BuckTurgidson: [www.ionroad.com image 616x333]


That looks like a cool app, what is it? :)
 
2012-11-15 03:55:59 PM  

Click Click D'oh: My poor Jeep would be illegal to manufacture these days... It's just too damn deadly.

... Although it hasn't had a single mishap in more than 200K miles.


Rates of mishaps are measured in per million vehicle miles. So color me unimpressed. Indeed any vehicle which going 200K miles without an accident is worth bragging about should probably be banned by law.
 
2012-11-15 04:09:12 PM  

dittybopper: Lost Thought 00: Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.

No, it just means you need to cut back on that 250hp grocery getter.

No: Doesn't matter if the vehicle is a full-sized Dodge EarthFarker, or HappyPlanet Mini-Cart. Adding any additional equipment to either will reduce the fuel economy of both vehicles by a small, but measurable amount. The effect will be more noticeable in the smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle, however, for a piece of safety equipment that weighs X and consumes Y amount of power.


Nice hyperbole.
power consumed by a small embedded processor power consumed by a car going at highway speeds ~30,000W
(good luck measuring the difference. The engine will also be ever-so-slightly more efficient generating 30,001W as well)

You will consume more gas than the processor ever used driving around shopping for the car you totaled because you couldn't brake as well as LIDAR.

The other catch is that this is true only if you are the only car on the road. Comparing a human vs. a computer controlled braking system leaves two possibilities: either the human is tailgating closer than the brakes can stop or he is getting less drafting benefits from not being close enough to the next car (I know which is true for most of the drivers here in Maryland).

Personally, I want to see computer enabled drafting for both the mileage benefits and reducing highway congestion down to nonexistent delays (at least for the computer-controlled lanes). Fully computer controlled cars are vastly harder to design, but will make bar-hopping and farmer's market shopping vastly safer.
 
2012-11-15 04:11:35 PM  
yet_another_wumpus
Nice hyperbole.
power consumed by a small embedded processor 1W
power consumed by a car going at highway speeds ~30,000W
(good luck measuring the difference. The engine will also be ever-so-slightly more efficient generating 30,001W as well)

Teach me to skip preview.
 
2012-11-15 04:15:56 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger:
Rates of mishaps are measured in per million vehicle miles. So color me unimpressed. Indeed any vehicle which going 200K miles without an accident is worth bragging about should probably be banned by law.


So wait... a vehicle that operates for almost a decade and a half, and more than 200K miles without a single mishap is so dangerous it should be banned by law?


Uh... I think the answer you were actually looking for is that all the newfangled legally required safety gizmos are bullshiat intended to replace the need for actual driver training, and that no amount of supplementation short of full automation can make a bad driver safe.
 
2012-11-15 04:20:16 PM  

dittybopper: Big Man On Campus: It's interesting that the Auto industry chooses to claim that new requirements will bankrupt them when in reality they just pass the cost onto the consumer,

You can only do that so much at the low end of the spectrum until you start pricing people out of new cars and into used ones. And while car makers don't make as much profit on the lower end, they sell a lot more of them. Adding a $1000 collision avoidance system to the cost of a $10k car is adding 10%. Adding the same equipment to a car that retails for $25k is only a 4% increase, and much less noticeable to the customers for $25k cars than it is for customers who buy $10k cars.


Yes, but why not just say that to the public? Why claim that the big bad corporation is going to be penalized when it isn't true? Why not instead say, "Look public, these regulations are going to raise the cost of your new vehicles, if that's ok with you.. well you get what you elected"
 
2012-11-15 04:21:16 PM  

Elvis_Bogart: The only piece of new equipment needed is a cellphone signal jammer in each car.


Amen. I don't want my car driving for me. I have not even used cruise control in the last 10 or so years and I take at least 1 1000+ mile road trip yearly.
 
2012-11-15 04:24:35 PM  

bittermang: sithon: that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.

Well. If you were going to crash the car. Maybe you need to have the wheel jerked away from you. If only for the sake of whatever or whoever you're about to hit.

Purists resist vehicle automation. I ask why we're not there already? Cell phone use. Tail gating. Road rage. Not using signals. Vehicular manslaughter. DUIs. I don't care if you're an expert driver who can ace the time trials at Laguna Seca. Back in reality, a great many people have proven themselves incapable of piloting a vehicle. You encounter them on the road every day, and some day one of them might kill you because they stubbornly insisted they could pilot a machine better than a computer.

I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.


Um, no. How about just permanently removing licenses from the incompetents and enforcing much stricter penalties on unlicensed drivers? I work with computers. They fark up all the time. If they didn't, I would not have a job.
 
2012-11-15 04:45:10 PM  

Kazrath:

Um, no. How about just permanently removing licenses from the incompetents and enforcing much stricter penalties on unlicensed drivers? I work with computers. They fark up all the time. If they didn't, I would not have a job.


How many airplane accident have been caused by autopilot? How many times have google's self driving cars gotten into accidents per mile driven? How does that compare to human drivers? Give it up. Computers will drive safer than you in 20 years and in 30 the idea of human driver who isn't a first responder will seem outlandish.
 
2012-11-15 05:16:32 PM  
Good Christ. Ctrl+F "Education" = 2 results. One insult, and a reply quoting it.

The operation of DEADLY MACHINERY requires LOTS of education. Not this paltry four hours behind the wheel plus 20 hours of pointless video instruction spread over two weeks. Our drivers education program is a joke. Look at the Finns, or the rest of the Nordic countries. Very difficult and thorough testing to get licensed. You want better drivers, train people who drive to be better at it. It's that easy.

Members of the military on the front lines operate deadly machinery every day. How much confidence would you place in them if they learned everything there is to know about tank / helicopter / machine gun operation over the course of a long weekend? Exactly.
 
2012-11-15 05:16:51 PM  

iheartscotch: JackieRabbit: iheartscotch: Maybe we should just make an auto pilot system for cars.

/ it would potentially reduce accidents by 1,000,000%

It has already happened and approved for trial use by California.

My sarcasm generator must be on the fritz.

The majority of people won't ever turn over complete control of a car to a computer. What happens if the manufacturer pushes an update when I'm asleep, traveling 90 mph?


I think we should try the technology, but on a limited trial basis first. We could install the technology in only some cars, but not others, and then track which group has more accidents. We could make red Barchettas be the first test group, say.
 
2012-11-15 05:22:35 PM  

Wile_E_Canuck: In an emergency situation, the absolute last thing I want is the vehicle telling me it knows better than I do how to react.

The vehicles with steering that reacts differently depending on conditions is another horrible idea. Turning the steering wheel should give you the same reaction on your wheels every time, not more or less depending on speed or whether the system thinks it's icy.


Computers don't panic, don't get drunk, and work far faster than the human brain when it comes to some tasks. Particularly when it comes to split-second responses to surprises. The day will come when the vehicle DOES know better than you do how to react.

And after that, the day will come when the use of the "autopilot" becomes mandatory, and turning it off and going to manual control will be a crime except under certain specific circumstances.

After that come the organ banks, then organlegging and ARM.
 
2012-11-15 05:33:09 PM  

ringersol: sithon: "that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands."

yeah and people used that sort of FUD to argue against anti-lock breaks and traction control too.
Nonsense like "a good driver does better without those things".

As if a good driver would ever be in a position where they'd engage in the first place.


"FUD"? You mean Fear, uncertainty and doubt?
 
2012-11-15 05:40:29 PM  

Kazrath: bittermang: I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.

Um, no. How about just permanently removing licenses from the incompetents and enforcing much stricter penalties on unlicensed drivers? I work with computers. They fark up all the time. If they didn't, I would not have a job.


That's only a realistic solution if you first make driving a luxury instead of a necessity. Not sure which country you're thinking of, but the USA is organized around the idea that pretty much every adult will own and drive their own car. You'd have to spend billions of dollars altering the infrastructure of almost the entire country to bring about the level of mass transit that would make the old "driving's a privilege, not a right" canard actually feasible. 

Much as I would like to see transit taken seriously in America, we are at this point so committed to individual car ownership that it would be far more practical to work towards self-driving cars, and this technology is a step towards that.
 
2012-11-15 05:40:53 PM  

ciberido: ringersol: sithon: "that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands."

yeah and people used that sort of FUD to argue against anti-lock breaks and traction control too.
Nonsense like "a good driver does better without those things".

As if a good driver would ever be in a position where they'd engage in the first place.

"FUD"? You mean Fear, uncertainty and doubt?


No, he means

morethananelectrician.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-15 06:14:08 PM  

WhiskeyBoy: Good Christ. Ctrl+F "Education" = 2 results. One insult, and a reply quoting it.

The operation of DEADLY MACHINERY requires LOTS of education. Not this paltry four hours behind the wheel plus 20 hours of pointless video instruction spread over two weeks. Our drivers education program is a joke. Look at the Finns, or the rest of the Nordic countries. Very difficult and thorough testing to get licensed. You want better drivers, train people who drive to be better at it. It's that easy.

Members of the military on the front lines operate deadly machinery every day. How much confidence would you place in them if they learned everything there is to know about tank / helicopter / machine gun operation over the course of a long weekend? Exactly.


That's a great idea but doing it would make unemployment 20% in some areas where people drive 100-200km a day for their commute. Driving is a luxury if you live in parts of Europe it is a requirement if you live in most of America since we lack basic public transportation in much of hte country.
 
2012-11-15 06:42:15 PM  
We'll show 'em. We'll all just take public transit instead.
 
2012-11-15 06:42:54 PM  

Carth: Kazrath:

Um, no. How about just permanently removing licenses from the incompetents and enforcing much stricter penalties on unlicensed drivers? I work with computers. They fark up all the time. If they didn't, I would not have a job.

How many airplane accident have been caused by autopilot? How many times have google's self driving cars gotten into accidents per mile driven? How does that compare to human drivers? Give it up. Computers will drive safer than you in 20 years and in 30 the idea of human driver who isn't a first responder will seem outlandish.


Well, in 30 years I will have already gone out in a blaze of glory driving through a farmers market. So, if it's that far off, I'm cool with it.
 
2012-11-15 07:01:43 PM  

People_are_Idiots: BuckTurgidson: [www.ionroad.com image 616x333]

That looks like a cool app, what is it? :)


iOnRoad, click the pic to go to the homepage.

Mount your smartphone on a dash or windshield mount with camera facing forward. Gripes at me for tailgating, detects straying out of lane, reads me my texts and email headers as they come in, records my trips, remembers my parking spot, and a bunch of other stuff. Free, too (for the time being, it's still beta).

My other favorite driving app at the moment is Waze - crowd-sourced traffic-jam and accident mapping.
 
2012-11-15 11:02:31 PM  
I may be in the minority but I think govenment has no inherent right to dictate what safety equipment car manufacturers choose to include in their cars. This is something that is strictly between the auto manufacturer and buyers. If I were god of the world for one day I would ban all laws concerning abs, air bags, seat belts, tpms, stability control, head rests and even safety glass. I would similarly do away with cafe standards and all emission controls.

That said I doubt things would change all that much or that it would much significantly alter the progression of safety or fuel economy technology. The consumers would for the most part want the same stuff. Sure, there would suddenly be a few new options out there. Like throwback cars with carbeurators and real, unstrangled V8s and a small segment of stripped down cars with none of the safety crap added. (Just imagine the benefit to the poor folks. They would suddenly be able to buy a basic car for maybe $5,000.) However, I think most folks would go on buying cars with the same features that they already do. The real difference is that consumers would have a damn choice. A taste of actual freedom.
 
2012-11-16 12:31:09 AM  

Ima4nic8or: I may be in the minority but I think govenment has no inherent right to dictate what safety equipment car manufacturers choose to include in their cars


Yes, you are in the minority. A very "special" minority.
 
2012-11-16 02:35:53 AM  
I want the freedom to not live in Ima4nic8or's Retardtopia.
 
2012-11-16 02:42:25 AM  

Ima4nic8or: I may be in the minority but I think govenment has no inherent right to dictate what safety equipment car manufacturers choose to include in their cars


They build the roads. They clean your corpse off the road. They get to set the rules for what travels on those roads. If you don't like it, you can build a kit car to your own specifications and drive on the private roads and paths in your town.
 
Displayed 137 of 137 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report