sithon: that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.
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.
bittermang: However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.
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.
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.
HK-MP5-SD: The real cost is in the automatic breaking system.
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.
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.
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.
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?
colinspooky: ..........mandatory collision avoidance system,..........Didn't that used to be called a "driver" back in the old days ?
Elvis_Bogart: The only piece of new equipment needed is a cellphone signal jammer in each car.
Can't get enough Fark in your life? Try
More threads. More community. More Farking.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Nov 23 2017 13:45:31
Runtime: 0.383 sec (383 ms)