Do you have adblock enabled?
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 29
    More: Interesting, National Transportation Safety Board, gears, Transportation Safety Board, rulemaking process, National Highway  
•       •       •

2435 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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

Didn't that used to be called a "driver" back in the old days ?
2012-11-15 11:17:47 AM  
4 votes:

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 04:55:20 AM  
4 votes:
The only piece of new equipment needed is a cellphone signal jammer in each car.
2012-11-15 11:58:56 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:35:49 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:21:46 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:19:13 AM  
2 votes:
This is going to need to be a very advanced system as avoiding 1 collision most times involves getting into another.
2012-11-15 05:40:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:08:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:52:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:30:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:22:11 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:19:22 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:14:19 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:49:13 AM  
1 votes:
Now that more women have driver's licenses than men, this can't come soon enough.
2012-11-15 11:45:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:44:41 AM  
1 votes:
"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 11:34:29 AM  
1 votes:
www.ionroad.com
2012-11-15 11:30:17 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:29:42 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:22:16 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:21:54 AM  
1 votes:
Maybe we should just make an auto pilot system for cars.

/ it would potentially reduce accidents by 1,000,000%
2012-11-15 11:19:36 AM  
1 votes:
It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.
2012-11-15 11:16:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:15:42 AM  
1 votes:
Wait...weren't automakers going bankrupt?

I thought we had to bail them out.....
2012-11-15 11:14:40 AM  
1 votes:
Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.
2012-11-15 11:14:12 AM  
1 votes:
"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 11:12:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:52:40 AM  
1 votes:

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?
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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