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
    More: Interesting, National Transportation Safety Board, gears, Transportation Safety Board, rulemaking process, National Highway  
•       •       •

2449 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2012 at 11:09 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2012-11-15 11:17:47 AM  
2 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 11:14:12 AM  
2 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 01:08:49 PM  
1 vote:

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.
Ehh
2012-11-15 12:01:30 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:56:33 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:45:19 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:35:28 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:34:29 AM  
1 vote:

www.ionroad.com

2012-11-15 11:19:44 AM  
1 vote:

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 08:52:40 AM  
1 vote:

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 03:23:28 AM  
1 vote:
..........mandatory collision avoidance system,..........

Didn't that used to be called a "driver" back in the old days ?
 
Displayed 11 of 11 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