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  
•       •       •

2429 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2012 at 11:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 37 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report