I have an issue with this and would like to know what others think. My 2017 Mazda Cx5 has emergency braking. When I have already used my brakes to slow down to a reasonable speed, generally when...
I have an issue with this and would like to know what others think.
My 2017 Mazda Cx5 has emergency braking. When I have already used my brakes to slow down to a reasonable speed, generally when another vehicle is turning in front of me, I let off the brakes and then all of a sudden the emergency sytem kicks in after the vehicle in front has already turned. My braking was precise and correct. The sensor and response was late and potentially dangerous.
The technology is not anywhere near where it should be. Same with the self driving and/or lane assist. In addition, I feel that these sensors and aids instill a false sense of security and safety. I still swing my head around to see what or who is around me. The most recent safety innovation that is most helpful is the back up camera and sensors. But as I live in a place where winter can get fierce, its doubly important to keep your vehicle clean so it continiues to work correctly.
Maybe my vehicle just doesn't perform as well as other, newer models. Thoughts?
I had to turn the emergency braking off on my 2019 VW Jetta because it kept triggering any time I would parallel park on one of the many two-lane, one-way streets in my city (like I'd be backing...
I had to turn the emergency braking off on my 2019 VW Jetta because it kept triggering any time I would parallel park on one of the many two-lane, one-way streets in my city (like I'd be backing up to park in the right lane and it would think I was backing up into the traffic that was still moving in the left lane). There's also a right turn/bend in the road on the way to my kid's school that has a striped warning sign of the upcoming turn. I have to make sure I'm in the right lane (there are two lanes traveling in the same direction) otherwise it'll trigger on that sign if I'm in the left lane.
Automation is nice in theory, but it actually becomes MORE dangerous when it doesn't work properly.
My car just has an alert in case you’re about to hit something. It goes off incorrectly sometimes but thankfully I’m able to decide for myself if there’s danger.
My car just has an alert in case you’re about to hit something. It goes off incorrectly sometimes but thankfully I’m able to decide for myself if there’s danger.
Mine starts out as a warning but will slam on the brakes if it thinks you're about to hit something. The first time it happened when I was parallel parking I was completely jarred (it applies the...
Mine starts out as a warning but will slam on the brakes if it thinks you're about to hit something. The first time it happened when I was parallel parking I was completely jarred (it applies the brakes HARD) and thought someone had rear-ended me.
Yep. A constant problem is that each new system you add that controls the vehicle outside of the driver is yet another system you have to learn, be aware of, and know how to override/overrule....
Automation is nice in theory, but it actually becomes MORE dangerous when it doesn't work properly.
Yep. A constant problem is that each new system you add that controls the vehicle outside of the driver is yet another system you have to learn, be aware of, and know how to override/overrule.
It's very possible such systems are going to wind up MORE dangerous rather than less when they're forced into everything, probably with the bare minimum effort, and will be jacking up car prices again. I have a nice car, and it has a good automatic breaking system that has almost NEVER engaged, but I've driven friends cars and found these systems to be, at a minimum, over sensitive.
You may feel that way, but the data doesn't agree. Automatic braking systems and collision warning systems have been out for long enough that they've been studied pretty extensively, and are found...
You may feel that way, but the data doesn't agree. Automatic braking systems and collision warning systems have been out for long enough that they've been studied pretty extensively, and are found to significantly reduce rear end collisions, like upwards of 60% reduction. I can't think of a single automotive safety feature since ABS that has been as impactful.
Statistics include everyone, but do not apply to everyone. Among those who drive well, there's a near zero chance of rear-ending someone. For such people, a system that might suddenly stop in the...
Statistics include everyone, but do not apply to everyone. Among those who drive well, there's a near zero chance of rear-ending someone. For such people, a system that might suddenly stop in the middle of traffic for no reason is more likely to cause them to be rear-ended. Phantom breaking is a real problem, I wouldn't mind having it if not for that. As they are, I'd rather just have an alarm when it detects something approaching too fast.
There is no such thing as a good driver. Everyone is a good driver under certain conditions and a bad driver under other conditions. Everyone gets tired. Everyone gets distracted by random...
Among those who drive well, there's a near zero chance of rear-ending someone.
There is no such thing as a good driver. Everyone is a good driver under certain conditions and a bad driver under other conditions. Everyone gets tired. Everyone gets distracted by random billboards and bumper stickers. Everyone has their mind wander. Everyone fiddles with the radio or other internal control. And everyone is a fantastic driver at times as well. Different people have different ratios of good driver time to bad driver time. But there is no such thing as people who "drive well." The only one who drives well is the mythical little old lady who only drives her car once a week to church on Sundays.
Odd, I know plenty of people who drive well so they must exist. Not everyone does those things either. There's nothing on billboards worth looking at, bumper stickers aren't that interesting or...
Odd, I know plenty of people who drive well so they must exist. Not everyone does those things either. There's nothing on billboards worth looking at, bumper stickers aren't that interesting or hard to read while paying attention to the road, radios can be fiddled with without looking. If you're so tired it affects your driving then you shouldn't be driving or at least be taking more precautions, like not following people closely. Can they have an off day, sure, it happens, but it doesn't negate that they usually drive well.
Inattention, which was operationally defined as including: (1) secondary task distraction;
(2) driving-related inattention to the forward roadway (e.g., blind spot checks); (3)
moderate to extreme drowsiness; and (4) other non-driving-related eyeglances, was a
contributing factor for 93 percent of the conflict with lead-vehicle crashes and minor
collisions.
Fatigue: Contributing factor in 12 percent of all crashes and 10 percent of all near-crashes, while most current database estimates place fatigue-related crashes at approximately 2 to 4 percent of total crashes.
Do these work? 🤔 Not exactly a reference to what I said, but they show rear-ending people is a result of mistakes any good driver avoids. If 93% is related to distractions, 2-4% to fatigue, that leaves 3-5% for everything else. Good drivers don't get distracted easily, don't drive when heavily fatigued (or at least drive with extreme caution) and the few remaining percents would include other easily avoided mistakes (driving too close), as well as unavoidable (someone swerves in front of you in heavy traffic) and medical issues. Hence near zero chance of rear-ending someone.
That's quite in-depth, thanks. Though I would say that if automated braking avoids 60% of rear-end scenarios, then even just the remaining ~4% of collisions (of 1,7 mil) leaves a little bit over...
That's quite in-depth, thanks.
Though I would say that if automated braking avoids 60% of rear-end scenarios, then even just the remaining ~4% of collisions (of 1,7 mil) leaves a little bit over 40000 read-ends it'd avoid in the continental US alone.
That's nothing to sneeze at. Sure it's minor, but that's also just for the small minority of rear-end collisions by decent drivers in perfectly ideal scenarios, not the just-under-1-mil it'd avoid overall.
And of course the 60% reduction doesn't apply equally, but I also lack the technical expertise to judge which way it'd swing - I could very well see a lesser reduction with truly awful drivers as they'd manage to read-end someone even against the best automation attempts. 😅 Hence assuming it's evenly distributed for now.
Thanks btw, didn't know what huge percentage distractions have, I would have thought fatigue is easily 20%+.
Lane assist is one of the most dangerous ones in a long time. It's "good enough" that if I turn it on, it feels magic, and it is...till it stops being perfect. And in winds over 20 mph? It...
Lane assist is one of the most dangerous ones in a long time. It's "good enough" that if I turn it on, it feels magic, and it is...till it stops being perfect.
And in winds over 20 mph? It horrifically over-corrects and will make your passengers nauseous very quickly.
It also doesn't work anywhere that either doesn't have straight roads, proper delineated lanes, or both. I've had a car with lane assist on holiday in the Azores and the car couldn't handle the...
It also doesn't work anywhere that either doesn't have straight roads, proper delineated lanes, or both.
I've had a car with lane assist on holiday in the Azores and the car couldn't handle the winding roads and lack of lines. Even though I turned it on only because I wanted to test this theory and already thought it wouldn't work, still a bad idea.
Sometimes my car starts to brake when I'm coming up to a turn and an oncoming car enters the bend slightly before I do. I think that cars need to at least be adept at recognizing road markings...
Sometimes my car starts to brake when I'm coming up to a turn and an oncoming car enters the bend slightly before I do. I think that cars need to at least be adept at recognizing road markings before blindly hitting the brakes anytime something is in front of it.
There is a particularly sharp turn in my town that triggers mine every single time even though the opposite cars are fully in their lane. And of course it makes me jump out of my skin every....
There is a particularly sharp turn in my town that triggers mine every single time even though the opposite cars are fully in their lane. And of course it makes me jump out of my skin every. single. time.
I have a MY 2021 BMW with emergency braking, lane keep assist, and proximity sensors. I find the emergency braking quite accurate. I've only had it activate a handful of time and it beat my...
I have a MY 2021 BMW with emergency braking, lane keep assist, and proximity sensors. I find the emergency braking quite accurate. I've only had it activate a handful of time and it beat my reaction by a couple milliseconds. Generally someone slamming on their brakes on the interstate or someone pulling out in front of me in town.
I turn the lane keep assist off except for haptic feedback. It reads lines fairly poorly and I've had it just jerk the car sideways when it reads a merging lane wrong.
The proximity sensors are fine. They a bit over sensitive even turned down to a medium/short range. For example I have a fairly steep drive way and sometimes it will read the road I'm back onto as an obstacle and beep a couple times. Doesn't really bother me because it prompts me to triple check whether anything is behind me.
From what I understand from the article this is mostly about exactly your situation: Right now, 90%+ of cars have the system, but there are no standards for it at all. The legislation aims not...
From what I understand from the article this is mostly about exactly your situation: Right now, 90%+ of cars have the system, but there are no standards for it at all.
The legislation aims not only to get this to 100%, but also to standardize what the system has to be able to do.
It seems like there are a lot of unknowns. We don't know what they will ship with in five years. Also, requiring cars to come with certain equipment doesn't necessarily mean it can't be disabled...
It seems like there are a lot of unknowns. We don't know what they will ship with in five years. Also, requiring cars to come with certain equipment doesn't necessarily mean it can't be disabled by the owner.
It sounds like regulations will require them to be more capable in some ways than they are now, but it's hard to say what that will fix.
Neither my 2015 Subaru Forester with the first gen eyesight that was sold in the US (2nd gen in Canada) with the older black and white cameras nor my (now sold) 2015 Impreza with the next...
Neither my 2015 Subaru Forester with the first gen eyesight that was sold in the US (2nd gen in Canada) with the older black and white cameras nor my (now sold) 2015 Impreza with the next generation, but no longer current generation of Eyesight has never done that, it sometimes beeps unnecessarily, but has never intervened when it shouldn’t.
Holy cow. This is good I guess, but why are we ignoring what is causing all these collisions? People are too busy looking at their phones to notice that they are running over pedestrians and...
Holy cow. This is good I guess, but why are we ignoring what is causing all these collisions? People are too busy looking at their phones to notice that they are running over pedestrians and rear-ending people. Car stopping distances are better than ever. We just need a way to make sure the operator is paying enough attention to use them.
I’m all for draconian laws for drunk and distracted drivers. If you are caught driving drunk you should lose your license. If you get into an accident because of your phone it should be similarly...
I’m all for draconian laws for drunk and distracted drivers. If you are caught driving drunk you should lose your license. If you get into an accident because of your phone it should be similarly harsh. Why don’t we treat cars as the death machines they are?
It would disrupt labor if people can't drive to work, it would lower revenue from car sales, and it would lead to regulating an industry that doesn't want to be regulated. They spend many tens of...
It would disrupt labor if people can't drive to work, it would lower revenue from car sales, and it would lead to regulating an industry that doesn't want to be regulated. They spend many tens of millions a year on lobbying.
Yeah, a few dead people is worth it financially. God forbid a company's stock price go down though! Sorry for the sarcasm, but no industry wants to be regulated, it costs them money. The point of...
Yeah, a few dead people is worth it financially. God forbid a company's stock price go down though!
Sorry for the sarcasm, but no industry wants to be regulated, it costs them money. The point of government is to be the counteracting force protecting us from bad practices. I doubt it would affect labour as much as people think anyway - would you risk drink-driving if it meant potentially losing your livelihood?
Unfortunately lobbying money goes into the pockets of politicians, so they're hardly incentivised to pass laws to prohibit lobbying.
It already puts your life in general at higher risk. I think that you are overestimating the amount of internal debate that people have when they drive drunk. I don't think the average drunk...
would you risk drink-driving if it meant potentially losing your livelihood?
It already puts your life in general at higher risk. I think that you are overestimating the amount of internal debate that people have when they drive drunk. I don't think the average drunk driver did a cost/benefit analysis in their head before they grabbed the keys.
My problem is that it's not just their own lives, it's people around them too. Their decision to drive drunk isn't just a choice in the moment, they chose to not plan their travel before drinking...
My problem is that it's not just their own lives, it's people around them too. Their decision to drive drunk isn't just a choice in the moment, they chose to not plan their travel before drinking and put other people at risk as a result.
They could have a designated driver, order a taxi, walk, take public transport, get an overnight hotel etc. There's no excuse for drink-driving (or phone use while driving) imo, so I struggle to feel sympathy for anyone who gets hit with the consequences.
Sleeping in a car will get you charged with a DUI just as much as driving it, unless you put your keys somewhere inaccessible to you which risks them being lost or stolen. That's terrible and I...
Sleeping in a car will get you charged with a DUI just as much as driving it, unless you put your keys somewhere inaccessible to you which risks them being lost or stolen. That's terrible and I truly believe that changing that law would reduce DUIs noticeably.
Still better than risking people’s lives. And I have to assume most cops, if you explain the situation and it’s clear you haven’t driven at all, would just give you a ride home without any trouble.
Still better than risking people’s lives. And I have to assume most cops, if you explain the situation and it’s clear you haven’t driven at all, would just give you a ride home without any trouble.
Better than putting people's lives at risk, but not as good as having a designated driver or taking public transportation home. You're a lot more optimistic about cops than I am. It probably...
Better than putting people's lives at risk, but not as good as having a designated driver or taking public transportation home. You're a lot more optimistic about cops than I am. It probably depends on a lot of factors but generally I try not to give them any excuse to mess up my life.
And making sure that folks who shouldn't be driving aren't driving anymore. For example - I love my grandma. She was born in a London bomb shelter during the Blitz in WWII. She still, to this day,...
And making sure that folks who shouldn't be driving aren't driving anymore.
For example - I love my grandma. She was born in a London bomb shelter during the Blitz in WWII. She still, to this day, drives hundreds of miles alone.
She got in a car accident last month. Completely her fault. The guy stopped at a red light, and she mixed up the brakes and the accelerator. She hit the accelerator when she thought she was hitting the brakes.
She should not be driving anymore. Of course, she thinks otherwise. She took a driving test and passed, just a couple days before the accident. But clearly that's not enough, because she got in the accident a couple days later.
We need better systems for determining "hey maybe this person shouldn't be behind the wheel anymore". And we need a society that is able to support public transit and other mobility platforms for folks who are no longer able to drive (for any number of reasons).
Cars are a luxury, and they should treated as the luxury they are. As soon as society really internalizes this, we'll be able to improve our quality of life substantially. By recognizing they are...
Cars are a luxury, and they should treated as the luxury they are. As soon as society really internalizes this, we'll be able to improve our quality of life substantially.
By recognizing they are a luxury, I mean Governments zhould do a lot more to discourage car ownership and usage, and encourage public transit usage, e.g. by making functional, humane transit systems (so no 30 years old busses and trains)
For a lot people cars are a necessity. Public transit is pretty worthless outside of some big cities, so I agree, it needs to be functional and humane. And a lot of the time just the weather alone...
For a lot people cars are a necessity. Public transit is pretty worthless outside of some big cities, so I agree, it needs to be functional and humane. And a lot of the time just the weather alone ruins the idea of riding your bike to work. Try and avoid cars while riding on ice and snow at 6am, it isn't reasonable or safe.
There's no universal law that says we must ride on ice and snow. Governments spend billions every year salting, plowing, and in some cases even heating roads to make them ideal surfaces to drive...
Exemplary
There's no universal law that says we must ride on ice and snow.
Governments spend billions every year salting, plowing, and in some cases even heating roads to make them ideal surfaces to drive cars across. Nothing says they couldn't do the same with bike paths.
Riding a bike/taking public transit/walking doesn't suck because of something inherit in those modes. They suck because we've invested all of our time, money, and energy into making traveling by far as pleasant and hassle free as possible, while doing basically nothing for any more of travel.
It's crazy that most people will instantly say "public transit sucks!", and being completely oblivious to the fact that they're likely investing something like $20,000 a year into car transportation, when you factor in the cost and depreciation of their car, gas, insurance, maintenance, the portion of their taxes that go to road construction and maintenance, tolls, parking (including the opportunity cost of parking lots and street parking).
Like yes, obviously if 300 million people are investing 20k a year into one more of transportation, and virtually nothing into another, the one you are paying for is going to feel more pleasant and convenient to use than the other.
People investing that much into trains, busses or bicycles instead of cars would make even concept of spending an hour or two piloting a car around each day seem absolutely ridiculous.
Advocates of recumbent bikes claim they’re as safe than regular bikes, but I’m skeptical. Handling and visibility are worse. Also, electric assist means that people go faster, though I suppose...
Advocates of recumbent bikes claim they’re as safe than regular bikes, but I’m skeptical. Handling and visibility are worse. Also, electric assist means that people go faster, though I suppose that could be handled by a governor.
Golf carts are a more practical solution. There are enormous retirement communities built around golf carts with special paths for them. (And that helps cyclists too.)
The community I’m thinking of is in Florida, though. It helps if you have money and are willing to move.
I mean, yes. What we have now is clearly suboptimal. But as a resident of a city with minimal public transportation infrastructure, I can't unilaterally throw $20K at the city and tell them to fix...
I mean, yes. What we have now is clearly suboptimal. But as a resident of a city with minimal public transportation infrastructure, I can't unilaterally throw $20K at the city and tell them to fix it. (I would absolutely do that if I thought it would work.)
What people are saying when they bring this up is that you have to fix the public transportation problem before taking cars away. Talking about car reduction now, as anything other than a very long term goal, is premature.
We don't even need to take cars away. We could put all the streets on road diets. Narrowing lanes encourages drivers to drive slower, and it doesn't decrease the throughput of roads. Narrow the...
We don't even need to take cars away. We could put all the streets on road diets. Narrowing lanes encourages drivers to drive slower, and it doesn't decrease the throughput of roads. Narrow the lanes, slow down the cars, use the freed up space for bike lanes. Costs almost nothing except for a little paint. Can be done effectively for free when it comes time to restripe a road anyway.
What cities should really be aiming for is the mass adoption of e-bikes. E-bikes, and especially cargo e-bikes, really are effective car replacements. And even a big cargo e-bike costs a fraction of what a full-sized vehicle does. If you can afford a car, you can afford an e-bike. In fact, the reduced where and tear on your car will mean the bike more than pays for itself over time. And in urban areas, where commuting speeds really aren't that fast anyway, e-bikes are just as fast as cars.
We need to restripe the arterial roads, narrow the lanes, and provide dedicated space for bikes and especially e-bikes. Bikes are great for fitness, but for true accessible practical transportation, e-bikes are the answer.
This also gets around the problem that people really do value the independence that private vehicle ownership brings. Go where you want, when you want. Don't have to worry about being harassed by weirdos on the bus. An e-bike allows that kind of freedom.
I don't think painted road diets are enough. Even in a city on a 25mph speed limit road, I don't like sharing space with cars. Drivers are frequently distracted, exceed the speed limit, and a...
I don't think painted road diets are enough.
Even in a city on a 25mph speed limit road, I don't like sharing space with cars. Drivers are frequently distracted, exceed the speed limit, and a small mistake can easily kill one (or more) bicycists due to the size and design of modern vehicles. Where I previously lived (before I got fed up with trying to bike around a US city and moved away), cars frequently ignored painted bike lanes, parked in them to create dangerous situations, and failed to yield to bikes when applicable at intersections. And that's not even bringing up the situations where drivers scream, yell, throw objects, rev their engines, roll coal, or otherwise menace pedestrians and bicycle riders just because they're angry.
We desperately need to remove giant trucks and SUVs from cities entirely (seriously, these things don't fit in street parking or city parking spaces any more, and the simple act of existing blocks visibility enough to endanger anyone nearby). We need automated ticketing systems to enforce speed limits. We need the police to strictly enforce license plate and unpaid ticket rules so people take the automated systems seriously. We need to punish road rage with an iron first. Only then will I trust paint to keep me safe from the small but significant number of psycopathic homicidal maniacs who truly, honestly believe that another human being's life and dignity are optional.
Having been to some of those cities, I agree! I'd use public transit all the time if I lived in one of them. I entirely intend for my statement to apply on the local level: talking about car...
Having been to some of those cities, I agree! I'd use public transit all the time if I lived in one of them.
I entirely intend for my statement to apply on the local level: talking about car reduction in a given place is premature before good public transit exists in that place. The US is too big to try to make sweeping generalizations about this.
If cars are a necessity, then why don't we give poor people free cars? If the poorest can be asked to go without cars, then wealthier people incapable of driving responsibly can also be asked to...
For a lot people cars are a necessity.
If cars are a necessity, then why don't we give poor people free cars?
If the poorest can be asked to go without cars, then wealthier people incapable of driving responsibly can also be asked to go without cars.
Not only that, but it seems like this is a band-aid measure meant to try and stop increasingly taller, increasingly heavier cars also becoming increasingly dangerous, without addressing the root...
Not only that, but it seems like this is a band-aid measure meant to try and stop increasingly taller, increasingly heavier cars also becoming increasingly dangerous, without addressing the root cause of the danger and requiring smaller, lighter cars.
Exactly. It seems like the DoT is taking the route of taking control away from drivers to try and reduce accidents instead of taking away the distractions from the drivers. The cars are more...
Exactly. It seems like the DoT is taking the route of taking control away from drivers to try and reduce accidents instead of taking away the distractions from the drivers. The cars are more lethal in accidents and the drivers are paying less attention than ever.
I would really like to see them regulate that basic car controls have to be physical and not digital buttons (and that includes things like climate control).
I would really like to see them regulate that basic car controls have to be physical and not digital buttons (and that includes things like climate control).
Add in that they still did hte same thing that caused the bigger and heavier cars to be in existance... allowed allowance for heavier cars!!! (Though to be fair I'm not sure what size cars go...
Add in that they still did hte same thing that caused the bigger and heavier cars to be in existance... allowed allowance for heavier cars!!! (Though to be fair I'm not sure what size cars go outside the limitation but I did notice that they were going to regulate it for under certain weight cars.... which is the same kind of regulations that got us with these huge cars in the first place).
It's basically impossible to get people to stop using their phones while driving. You can increase enforcement or penalties, but both are extremely costly and have diminishing returns. The levers...
It's basically impossible to get people to stop using their phones while driving. You can increase enforcement or penalties, but both are extremely costly and have diminishing returns.
The levers of policy can only be applied in certain ways. You can force companies to put systems in place that make distracted driving less dangerous. You can't stop at least some people from using their phones while driving.
The true issue that we always dance around is that it's never going to be safe to require the vast majority of adults to be responsible for flinging 4000 lbs of metal down a highway at 65mph twice a day in order to make a living. Literally every other similarly dangerous thing people do for a living requires extensive training and certification. Operating heavy machinery, using explosives, handling hazmat and so on are done by people who are specialized and trained to do that.
Operating a motor vehicle, something that kills WAY more people and is the leading cause of accidental death requires no training and a half hour exam when you're 16 and no recertification ever.
Until mass transit becomes the primary way most people commute, driving on a road will remain an incredibly dangerous thing that most people do twice a day.
Well here's an example that is already in some cars that could prevent cell phone use while driving. Ford and GM cars that have self-driving on the highway have eye detection that track the...
Well here's an example that is already in some cars that could prevent cell phone use while driving. Ford and GM cars that have self-driving on the highway have eye detection that track the driver's eyes to make sure they are paying attention to the road. If the DoT instead mandated that all new cars must have eye tracking to detect whether a driver is distracted could improve safety in many different categories instead of just braking.
If a driver takes their eyes off the road for say 5 seconds, the car can start making annoying chiming sounds to get the attention of the driver. If the driver isn't paying attention for 10 seconds, the hazard lights can be automatically turned on. When 15 seconds pass without the driver paying attention, the car can apply the brakes and automatically stop because the driver must be unconscious at that point.
The details are just my opinion and don't necessarily have to be debated, but I do think that eye tracking would be a better solution that could reduce rear end collisions and pedestrian deaths with the right implementation.
Perhaps the answer is eye tracking. That technology has come along way. Take your eyes off the road, the car starts automatically applying the brakes. That would train people pretty quickly not to...
Perhaps the answer is eye tracking. That technology has come along way. Take your eyes off the road, the car starts automatically applying the brakes. That would train people pretty quickly not to get distracted by their phones or infotainment.
[citation needed] Plus, I would argue modern cars with their iPad-centric-controls are just as bad. As they are essentially phones. So to focus on the actual car, you need to focus on your phone....
People are too busy looking at their phones to notice that they are running over pedestrians and rear-ending people.
[citation needed]
Plus, I would argue modern cars with their iPad-centric-controls are just as bad. As they are essentially phones. So to focus on the actual car, you need to focus on your phone. Basically. It's ridiculous!
I'm driving a 2020 Subaru with an over-sensitive antilock and automatic brake system. As /u/Spydrchick noted, the random action of the antilock and the juddering that interferes with normal...
I'm driving a 2020 Subaru with an over-sensitive antilock and automatic brake system. As /u/Spydrchick noted, the random action of the antilock and the juddering that interferes with normal steering are more dangerous than nothing at all, most of the time. And yes, I've appreciated it a couple of times in icy conditions, but I wish I could disable it on dry pavement.
The automatic braking hasn't actually resulted in loss of control, but it put my face into the steering wheel when the car ahead stopped without warning in a 25 mph zone. I was following at a safe distance and already braking, but the car decided it knew better about how quickly to decelerate. I only got slightly bruised. Nonetheless, I'm frightened about rushing ahead with systems that are algorithmically and mechanically locked into specific behaviors irrespective of human judgment, dependent on sensing systems that are fragile and easily miscalibrated. The NPR article doesn't mention any particular certification, evaluation, or maintenance requirements for these systems, which really puts an edge on the problem.
The seatbelt did lock. However, I had on a couple of layers of bulky down jacket, down vest, and a thick sweater (because that's the kind of climate which actually requires a Subaru). So I think...
The seatbelt did lock. However, I had on a couple of layers of bulky down jacket, down vest, and a thick sweater (because that's the kind of climate which actually requires a Subaru). So I think there was just enough slack for my chin to hit the wheel. As I said, just a little bruised, but still disturbing. [As an aside, seatbelt effectiveness is a little less than desirable if you're short, have female bits up top, are overweight, etc. I'm 5' 5" and sit pretty close to the steering wheel.]
After giving this some thought, I have come to dislike this legislation. It's not a terribly bad idea, it's just that it's a relatively expensive thing to implement when there are so many...
After giving this some thought, I have come to dislike this legislation. It's not a terribly bad idea, it's just that it's a relatively expensive thing to implement when there are so many low-hanging fruit that can be implemented more easily and for as low as zero dollars. Things like making reasonable height and weight limits, or making stricter laws to regulate indicators so they aren't ambiguous, distracting, or blinding at night, or something that makes enforcement on headlight alignment and brightness stick a lot harder.
Excellent point. I've grown deeply distrustful of legislation that imposes large costs across the board -- it would be interesting to find out who's happy with this regulation. Presumably auto...
Excellent point. I've grown deeply distrustful of legislation that imposes large costs across the board -- it would be interesting to find out who's happy with this regulation. Presumably auto companies want to raise prices to increase profits and juice numbers, and this gives them a scapegoat? Mechanics who can increase their own numbers as they maintain these systems?
What really grinds my gears is that there doesn't even seem to be an appetite for the things you mention in our political space. Every time I drive, the towering, hulking, blinding machines that dominate the roads today annoy me. Many friends share the same complaint. But if you try to tax large vehicles, a massive chunk of our country gets pissed that you're trying to "limit freedoms". If you try to remove shoddy vehicles from the road, the bleeding hearts complain that you're going to hurt the poor. If you suggest we enforce rules of the road, or phone use at the wheel, people complain that the cops can't be trusted.
Every year, the roads get more and more dangerous. And inatead of fixing things that can literally only be fixed by government regulation, we're... requiring flaky auto braking systems to introduce yet more complication in every vehicle.
Yes, some of these are cheaper, but not necessarily zero dollars. For example, stricter enforcement of rules about headlights would cost governments money to enforce with more police work. (It’s...
Yes, some of these are cheaper, but not necessarily zero dollars. For example, stricter enforcement of rules about headlights would cost governments money to enforce with more police work. (It’s easy to replace them.)
I also think that making buying a new car more expensive for people buying large, heavy (and already expensive) vehicles isn’t such a bad thing, particularly when it’s a safety improvement for others? Perhaps there should be an exemption for small vehicles.
YIkes, I had a grand am, god it was a piece of shit. And between the antilock breaks that weren't great and the signal if I was getting too close to something, I thought I was fucked a few times....
YIkes, I had a grand am, god it was a piece of shit. And between the antilock breaks that weren't great and the signal if I was getting too close to something, I thought I was fucked a few times. Hell, the breaks would, for lack of a better term, strobe when they sensed locking up. But they didn't exactly do it very quickly. It was more like an elderly person on narcatics was told to turn the light on and off at fifteen second intervals. I ran a shitload of red lights due that shit. And it wasn't just in the winter and in snow. Living in a high desert, and plenty of times, I went through a red light on a clear summer day. Once that shit kicked in I knew I wasn't stopping.
So, to have breaks that can fuckup my kneck and back for the sake of safety, makes me a bit nervous. How many recalls are going to happen because of that bad idea?
A notification is a good idea, provided it's not a horrible sound like a foghorn. But taking control away for something that is going to prone to faults just screams more accidents, and more injuries.
What about the people who don't have autobreaks? Your car slams on the breaks for seemingly no reason. I'm going to rear end your ass. And I will get a ticket, and my insurance will go up because your car's break sensor is buggy.... Not a great concept.
... you should be driving far enough behind the other car to stop when they do, even if they manually suddenly brake. That's, like, rule 1 of driving safety.
What about the people who don't have autobreaks? Your car slams on the breaks for seemingly no reason. I'm going to rear end your ass. And I will get a ticket, and my insurance will go up because your car's break sensor is buggy.... Not a great concept.
... you should be driving far enough behind the other car to stop when they do, even if they manually suddenly brake. That's, like, rule 1 of driving safety.
I have an issue with this and would like to know what others think.
My 2017 Mazda Cx5 has emergency braking. When I have already used my brakes to slow down to a reasonable speed, generally when another vehicle is turning in front of me, I let off the brakes and then all of a sudden the emergency sytem kicks in after the vehicle in front has already turned. My braking was precise and correct. The sensor and response was late and potentially dangerous.
The technology is not anywhere near where it should be. Same with the self driving and/or lane assist. In addition, I feel that these sensors and aids instill a false sense of security and safety. I still swing my head around to see what or who is around me. The most recent safety innovation that is most helpful is the back up camera and sensors. But as I live in a place where winter can get fierce, its doubly important to keep your vehicle clean so it continiues to work correctly.
Maybe my vehicle just doesn't perform as well as other, newer models. Thoughts?
I had to turn the emergency braking off on my 2019 VW Jetta because it kept triggering any time I would parallel park on one of the many two-lane, one-way streets in my city (like I'd be backing up to park in the right lane and it would think I was backing up into the traffic that was still moving in the left lane). There's also a right turn/bend in the road on the way to my kid's school that has a striped warning sign of the upcoming turn. I have to make sure I'm in the right lane (there are two lanes traveling in the same direction) otherwise it'll trigger on that sign if I'm in the left lane.
Automation is nice in theory, but it actually becomes MORE dangerous when it doesn't work properly.
My car just has an alert in case you’re about to hit something. It goes off incorrectly sometimes but thankfully I’m able to decide for myself if there’s danger.
Mine starts out as a warning but will slam on the brakes if it thinks you're about to hit something. The first time it happened when I was parallel parking I was completely jarred (it applies the brakes HARD) and thought someone had rear-ended me.
Yep. A constant problem is that each new system you add that controls the vehicle outside of the driver is yet another system you have to learn, be aware of, and know how to override/overrule.
It's very possible such systems are going to wind up MORE dangerous rather than less when they're forced into everything, probably with the bare minimum effort, and will be jacking up car prices again. I have a nice car, and it has a good automatic breaking system that has almost NEVER engaged, but I've driven friends cars and found these systems to be, at a minimum, over sensitive.
You may feel that way, but the data doesn't agree. Automatic braking systems and collision warning systems have been out for long enough that they've been studied pretty extensively, and are found to significantly reduce rear end collisions, like upwards of 60% reduction. I can't think of a single automotive safety feature since ABS that has been as impactful.
Statistics include everyone, but do not apply to everyone. Among those who drive well, there's a near zero chance of rear-ending someone. For such people, a system that might suddenly stop in the middle of traffic for no reason is more likely to cause them to be rear-ended. Phantom breaking is a real problem, I wouldn't mind having it if not for that. As they are, I'd rather just have an alarm when it detects something approaching too fast.
There is no such thing as a good driver. Everyone is a good driver under certain conditions and a bad driver under other conditions. Everyone gets tired. Everyone gets distracted by random billboards and bumper stickers. Everyone has their mind wander. Everyone fiddles with the radio or other internal control. And everyone is a fantastic driver at times as well. Different people have different ratios of good driver time to bad driver time. But there is no such thing as people who "drive well." The only one who drives well is the mythical little old lady who only drives her car once a week to church on Sundays.
Odd, I know plenty of people who drive well so they must exist. Not everyone does those things either. There's nothing on billboards worth looking at, bumper stickers aren't that interesting or hard to read while paying attention to the road, radios can be fiddled with without looking. If you're so tired it affects your driving then you shouldn't be driving or at least be taking more precautions, like not following people closely. Can they have an off day, sure, it happens, but it doesn't negate that they usually drive well.
[citation needed]
100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study:
Do these work? 🤔 Not exactly a reference to what I said, but they show rear-ending people is a result of mistakes any good driver avoids. If 93% is related to distractions, 2-4% to fatigue, that leaves 3-5% for everything else. Good drivers don't get distracted easily, don't drive when heavily fatigued (or at least drive with extreme caution) and the few remaining percents would include other easily avoided mistakes (driving too close), as well as unavoidable (someone swerves in front of you in heavy traffic) and medical issues. Hence near zero chance of rear-ending someone.
That's quite in-depth, thanks.
Though I would say that if automated braking avoids 60% of rear-end scenarios, then even just the remaining ~4% of collisions (of 1,7 mil) leaves a little bit over 40000 read-ends it'd avoid in the continental US alone.
That's nothing to sneeze at. Sure it's minor, but that's also just for the small minority of rear-end collisions by decent drivers in perfectly ideal scenarios, not the just-under-1-mil it'd avoid overall.
And of course the 60% reduction doesn't apply equally, but I also lack the technical expertise to judge which way it'd swing - I could very well see a lesser reduction with truly awful drivers as they'd manage to read-end someone even against the best automation attempts. 😅 Hence assuming it's evenly distributed for now.
Thanks btw, didn't know what huge percentage distractions have, I would have thought fatigue is easily 20%+.
Lane assist is one of the most dangerous ones in a long time. It's "good enough" that if I turn it on, it feels magic, and it is...till it stops being perfect.
And in winds over 20 mph? It horrifically over-corrects and will make your passengers nauseous very quickly.
It also doesn't work anywhere that either doesn't have straight roads, proper delineated lanes, or both.
I've had a car with lane assist on holiday in the Azores and the car couldn't handle the winding roads and lack of lines. Even though I turned it on only because I wanted to test this theory and already thought it wouldn't work, still a bad idea.
Sometimes my car starts to brake when I'm coming up to a turn and an oncoming car enters the bend slightly before I do. I think that cars need to at least be adept at recognizing road markings before blindly hitting the brakes anytime something is in front of it.
There is a particularly sharp turn in my town that triggers mine every single time even though the opposite cars are fully in their lane. And of course it makes me jump out of my skin every. single. time.
By the time this law goes into effect, your car will be 12 years old
I have a MY 2021 BMW with emergency braking, lane keep assist, and proximity sensors. I find the emergency braking quite accurate. I've only had it activate a handful of time and it beat my reaction by a couple milliseconds. Generally someone slamming on their brakes on the interstate or someone pulling out in front of me in town.
I turn the lane keep assist off except for haptic feedback. It reads lines fairly poorly and I've had it just jerk the car sideways when it reads a merging lane wrong.
The proximity sensors are fine. They a bit over sensitive even turned down to a medium/short range. For example I have a fairly steep drive way and sometimes it will read the road I'm back onto as an obstacle and beep a couple times. Doesn't really bother me because it prompts me to triple check whether anything is behind me.
From what I understand from the article this is mostly about exactly your situation: Right now, 90%+ of cars have the system, but there are no standards for it at all.
The legislation aims not only to get this to 100%, but also to standardize what the system has to be able to do.
It seems like there are a lot of unknowns. We don't know what they will ship with in five years. Also, requiring cars to come with certain equipment doesn't necessarily mean it can't be disabled by the owner.
It sounds like regulations will require them to be more capable in some ways than they are now, but it's hard to say what that will fix.
Neither my 2015 Subaru Forester with the first gen eyesight that was sold in the US (2nd gen in Canada) with the older black and white cameras nor my (now sold) 2015 Impreza with the next generation, but no longer current generation of Eyesight has never done that, it sometimes beeps unnecessarily, but has never intervened when it shouldn’t.
Holy cow. This is good I guess, but why are we ignoring what is causing all these collisions? People are too busy looking at their phones to notice that they are running over pedestrians and rear-ending people. Car stopping distances are better than ever. We just need a way to make sure the operator is paying enough attention to use them.
I’m all for draconian laws for drunk and distracted drivers. If you are caught driving drunk you should lose your license. If you get into an accident because of your phone it should be similarly harsh. Why don’t we treat cars as the death machines they are?
It would disrupt labor if people can't drive to work, it would lower revenue from car sales, and it would lead to regulating an industry that doesn't want to be regulated. They spend many tens of millions a year on lobbying.
Yeah, a few dead people is worth it financially. God forbid a company's stock price go down though!
Sorry for the sarcasm, but no industry wants to be regulated, it costs them money. The point of government is to be the counteracting force protecting us from bad practices. I doubt it would affect labour as much as people think anyway - would you risk drink-driving if it meant potentially losing your livelihood?
Unfortunately lobbying money goes into the pockets of politicians, so they're hardly incentivised to pass laws to prohibit lobbying.
It already puts your life in general at higher risk. I think that you are overestimating the amount of internal debate that people have when they drive drunk. I don't think the average drunk driver did a cost/benefit analysis in their head before they grabbed the keys.
My problem is that it's not just their own lives, it's people around them too. Their decision to drive drunk isn't just a choice in the moment, they chose to not plan their travel before drinking and put other people at risk as a result.
They could have a designated driver, order a taxi, walk, take public transport, get an overnight hotel etc. There's no excuse for drink-driving (or phone use while driving) imo, so I struggle to feel sympathy for anyone who gets hit with the consequences.
They by definition have access to a car. Sleeping in a car sucks but it’s always an option. They’re just stupid and selfish.
Sleeping in a car will get you charged with a DUI just as much as driving it, unless you put your keys somewhere inaccessible to you which risks them being lost or stolen. That's terrible and I truly believe that changing that law would reduce DUIs noticeably.
Still better than risking people’s lives. And I have to assume most cops, if you explain the situation and it’s clear you haven’t driven at all, would just give you a ride home without any trouble.
Better than putting people's lives at risk, but not as good as having a designated driver or taking public transportation home. You're a lot more optimistic about cops than I am. It probably depends on a lot of factors but generally I try not to give them any excuse to mess up my life.
There are a whole lot of poor people that can get run over. There are only a handful of rich CEOs that can bribe politicians.
And making sure that folks who shouldn't be driving aren't driving anymore.
For example - I love my grandma. She was born in a London bomb shelter during the Blitz in WWII. She still, to this day, drives hundreds of miles alone.
She got in a car accident last month. Completely her fault. The guy stopped at a red light, and she mixed up the brakes and the accelerator. She hit the accelerator when she thought she was hitting the brakes.
She should not be driving anymore. Of course, she thinks otherwise. She took a driving test and passed, just a couple days before the accident. But clearly that's not enough, because she got in the accident a couple days later.
We need better systems for determining "hey maybe this person shouldn't be behind the wheel anymore". And we need a society that is able to support public transit and other mobility platforms for folks who are no longer able to drive (for any number of reasons).
Cars are a luxury, and they should treated as the luxury they are. As soon as society really internalizes this, we'll be able to improve our quality of life substantially.
By recognizing they are a luxury, I mean Governments zhould do a lot more to discourage car ownership and usage, and encourage public transit usage, e.g. by making functional, humane transit systems (so no 30 years old busses and trains)
For a lot people cars are a necessity. Public transit is pretty worthless outside of some big cities, so I agree, it needs to be functional and humane. And a lot of the time just the weather alone ruins the idea of riding your bike to work. Try and avoid cars while riding on ice and snow at 6am, it isn't reasonable or safe.
There's no universal law that says we must ride on ice and snow.
Governments spend billions every year salting, plowing, and in some cases even heating roads to make them ideal surfaces to drive cars across. Nothing says they couldn't do the same with bike paths.
Riding a bike/taking public transit/walking doesn't suck because of something inherit in those modes. They suck because we've invested all of our time, money, and energy into making traveling by far as pleasant and hassle free as possible, while doing basically nothing for any more of travel.
It's crazy that most people will instantly say "public transit sucks!", and being completely oblivious to the fact that they're likely investing something like $20,000 a year into car transportation, when you factor in the cost and depreciation of their car, gas, insurance, maintenance, the portion of their taxes that go to road construction and maintenance, tolls, parking (including the opportunity cost of parking lots and street parking).
Like yes, obviously if 300 million people are investing 20k a year into one more of transportation, and virtually nothing into another, the one you are paying for is going to feel more pleasant and convenient to use than the other.
People investing that much into trains, busses or bicycles instead of cars would make even concept of spending an hour or two piloting a car around each day seem absolutely ridiculous.
The older people who shouldn’t be driving also shouldn’t be riding a bike. A fall at that age is hard to recover from and many people don’t.
Recumbent bike with electric assist. Done. Costs a fraction of what a full sized vehicle does.
Advocates of recumbent bikes claim they’re as safe than regular bikes, but I’m skeptical. Handling and visibility are worse. Also, electric assist means that people go faster, though I suppose that could be handled by a governor.
Golf carts are a more practical solution. There are enormous retirement communities built around golf carts with special paths for them. (And that helps cyclists too.)
The community I’m thinking of is in Florida, though. It helps if you have money and are willing to move.
There are also tricycles which are stable
I mean, yes. What we have now is clearly suboptimal. But as a resident of a city with minimal public transportation infrastructure, I can't unilaterally throw $20K at the city and tell them to fix it. (I would absolutely do that if I thought it would work.)
What people are saying when they bring this up is that you have to fix the public transportation problem before taking cars away. Talking about car reduction now, as anything other than a very long term goal, is premature.
We don't even need to take cars away. We could put all the streets on road diets. Narrowing lanes encourages drivers to drive slower, and it doesn't decrease the throughput of roads. Narrow the lanes, slow down the cars, use the freed up space for bike lanes. Costs almost nothing except for a little paint. Can be done effectively for free when it comes time to restripe a road anyway.
What cities should really be aiming for is the mass adoption of e-bikes. E-bikes, and especially cargo e-bikes, really are effective car replacements. And even a big cargo e-bike costs a fraction of what a full-sized vehicle does. If you can afford a car, you can afford an e-bike. In fact, the reduced where and tear on your car will mean the bike more than pays for itself over time. And in urban areas, where commuting speeds really aren't that fast anyway, e-bikes are just as fast as cars.
We need to restripe the arterial roads, narrow the lanes, and provide dedicated space for bikes and especially e-bikes. Bikes are great for fitness, but for true accessible practical transportation, e-bikes are the answer.
This also gets around the problem that people really do value the independence that private vehicle ownership brings. Go where you want, when you want. Don't have to worry about being harassed by weirdos on the bus. An e-bike allows that kind of freedom.
I don't think painted road diets are enough.
Even in a city on a 25mph speed limit road, I don't like sharing space with cars. Drivers are frequently distracted, exceed the speed limit, and a small mistake can easily kill one (or more) bicycists due to the size and design of modern vehicles. Where I previously lived (before I got fed up with trying to bike around a US city and moved away), cars frequently ignored painted bike lanes, parked in them to create dangerous situations, and failed to yield to bikes when applicable at intersections. And that's not even bringing up the situations where drivers scream, yell, throw objects, rev their engines, roll coal, or otherwise menace pedestrians and bicycle riders just because they're angry.
We desperately need to remove giant trucks and SUVs from cities entirely (seriously, these things don't fit in street parking or city parking spaces any more, and the simple act of existing blocks visibility enough to endanger anyone nearby). We need automated ticketing systems to enforce speed limits. We need the police to strictly enforce license plate and unpaid ticket rules so people take the automated systems seriously. We need to punish road rage with an iron first. Only then will I trust paint to keep me safe from the small but significant number of psycopathic homicidal maniacs who truly, honestly believe that another human being's life and dignity are optional.
Finally, a solution to the “I’m not bothering biking to work if it makes me sweaty” problem that doesn’t involve every business installing showers.
There are US cities with pretty good public transit. I’m in one and we can absolutely limit cars here. They’ve actually already started.
Having been to some of those cities, I agree! I'd use public transit all the time if I lived in one of them.
I entirely intend for my statement to apply on the local level: talking about car reduction in a given place is premature before good public transit exists in that place. The US is too big to try to make sweeping generalizations about this.
That's not even getting into jobs that "require reliable transportation," which is really just code for "you must have a car."
If cars are a necessity, then why don't we give poor people free cars?
If the poorest can be asked to go without cars, then wealthier people incapable of driving responsibly can also be asked to go without cars.
I'm less than half the age of your grandma, and trust me, you don't want me to drive any kind of car. So I don't.
Not only that, but it seems like this is a band-aid measure meant to try and stop increasingly taller, increasingly heavier cars also becoming increasingly dangerous, without addressing the root cause of the danger and requiring smaller, lighter cars.
Exactly. It seems like the DoT is taking the route of taking control away from drivers to try and reduce accidents instead of taking away the distractions from the drivers. The cars are more lethal in accidents and the drivers are paying less attention than ever.
I would really like to see them regulate that basic car controls have to be physical and not digital buttons (and that includes things like climate control).
Add in that they still did hte same thing that caused the bigger and heavier cars to be in existance... allowed allowance for heavier cars!!! (Though to be fair I'm not sure what size cars go outside the limitation but I did notice that they were going to regulate it for under certain weight cars.... which is the same kind of regulations that got us with these huge cars in the first place).
It's basically impossible to get people to stop using their phones while driving. You can increase enforcement or penalties, but both are extremely costly and have diminishing returns.
The levers of policy can only be applied in certain ways. You can force companies to put systems in place that make distracted driving less dangerous. You can't stop at least some people from using their phones while driving.
The true issue that we always dance around is that it's never going to be safe to require the vast majority of adults to be responsible for flinging 4000 lbs of metal down a highway at 65mph twice a day in order to make a living. Literally every other similarly dangerous thing people do for a living requires extensive training and certification. Operating heavy machinery, using explosives, handling hazmat and so on are done by people who are specialized and trained to do that.
Operating a motor vehicle, something that kills WAY more people and is the leading cause of accidental death requires no training and a half hour exam when you're 16 and no recertification ever.
Until mass transit becomes the primary way most people commute, driving on a road will remain an incredibly dangerous thing that most people do twice a day.
Well here's an example that is already in some cars that could prevent cell phone use while driving. Ford and GM cars that have self-driving on the highway have eye detection that track the driver's eyes to make sure they are paying attention to the road. If the DoT instead mandated that all new cars must have eye tracking to detect whether a driver is distracted could improve safety in many different categories instead of just braking.
If a driver takes their eyes off the road for say 5 seconds, the car can start making annoying chiming sounds to get the attention of the driver. If the driver isn't paying attention for 10 seconds, the hazard lights can be automatically turned on. When 15 seconds pass without the driver paying attention, the car can apply the brakes and automatically stop because the driver must be unconscious at that point.
The details are just my opinion and don't necessarily have to be debated, but I do think that eye tracking would be a better solution that could reduce rear end collisions and pedestrian deaths with the right implementation.
Perhaps the answer is eye tracking. That technology has come along way. Take your eyes off the road, the car starts automatically applying the brakes. That would train people pretty quickly not to get distracted by their phones or infotainment.
[citation needed]
Plus, I would argue modern cars with their iPad-centric-controls are just as bad. As they are essentially phones. So to focus on the actual car, you need to focus on your phone. Basically. It's ridiculous!
I'm driving a 2020 Subaru with an over-sensitive antilock and automatic brake system. As /u/Spydrchick noted, the random action of the antilock and the juddering that interferes with normal steering are more dangerous than nothing at all, most of the time. And yes, I've appreciated it a couple of times in icy conditions, but I wish I could disable it on dry pavement.
The automatic braking hasn't actually resulted in loss of control, but it put my face into the steering wheel when the car ahead stopped without warning in a 25 mph zone. I was following at a safe distance and already braking, but the car decided it knew better about how quickly to decelerate. I only got slightly bruised. Nonetheless, I'm frightened about rushing ahead with systems that are algorithmically and mechanically locked into specific behaviors irrespective of human judgment, dependent on sensing systems that are fragile and easily miscalibrated. The NPR article doesn't mention any particular certification, evaluation, or maintenance requirements for these systems, which really puts an edge on the problem.
Random Q to satiate my curiosity, how did the seat belt not prevent your face from hitting the wheel? Did the belt not lock up?
The seatbelt did lock. However, I had on a couple of layers of bulky down jacket, down vest, and a thick sweater (because that's the kind of climate which actually requires a Subaru). So I think there was just enough slack for my chin to hit the wheel. As I said, just a little bruised, but still disturbing. [As an aside, seatbelt effectiveness is a little less than desirable if you're short, have female bits up top, are overweight, etc. I'm 5' 5" and sit pretty close to the steering wheel.]
I just finished reading Invisible Women Data Bias in a world designed for men. Problems like this are pervasive. It's depressing
After giving this some thought, I have come to dislike this legislation. It's not a terribly bad idea, it's just that it's a relatively expensive thing to implement when there are so many low-hanging fruit that can be implemented more easily and for as low as zero dollars. Things like making reasonable height and weight limits, or making stricter laws to regulate indicators so they aren't ambiguous, distracting, or blinding at night, or something that makes enforcement on headlight alignment and brightness stick a lot harder.
Excellent point. I've grown deeply distrustful of legislation that imposes large costs across the board -- it would be interesting to find out who's happy with this regulation. Presumably auto companies want to raise prices to increase profits and juice numbers, and this gives them a scapegoat? Mechanics who can increase their own numbers as they maintain these systems?
What really grinds my gears is that there doesn't even seem to be an appetite for the things you mention in our political space. Every time I drive, the towering, hulking, blinding machines that dominate the roads today annoy me. Many friends share the same complaint. But if you try to tax large vehicles, a massive chunk of our country gets pissed that you're trying to "limit freedoms". If you try to remove shoddy vehicles from the road, the bleeding hearts complain that you're going to hurt the poor. If you suggest we enforce rules of the road, or phone use at the wheel, people complain that the cops can't be trusted.
Every year, the roads get more and more dangerous. And inatead of fixing things that can literally only be fixed by government regulation, we're... requiring flaky auto braking systems to introduce yet more complication in every vehicle.
Yes, some of these are cheaper, but not necessarily zero dollars. For example, stricter enforcement of rules about headlights would cost governments money to enforce with more police work. (It’s easy to replace them.)
I also think that making buying a new car more expensive for people buying large, heavy (and already expensive) vehicles isn’t such a bad thing, particularly when it’s a safety improvement for others? Perhaps there should be an exemption for small vehicles.
YIkes, I had a grand am, god it was a piece of shit. And between the antilock breaks that weren't great and the signal if I was getting too close to something, I thought I was fucked a few times. Hell, the breaks would, for lack of a better term, strobe when they sensed locking up. But they didn't exactly do it very quickly. It was more like an elderly person on narcatics was told to turn the light on and off at fifteen second intervals. I ran a shitload of red lights due that shit. And it wasn't just in the winter and in snow. Living in a high desert, and plenty of times, I went through a red light on a clear summer day. Once that shit kicked in I knew I wasn't stopping.
So, to have breaks that can fuckup my kneck and back for the sake of safety, makes me a bit nervous. How many recalls are going to happen because of that bad idea?
A notification is a good idea, provided it's not a horrible sound like a foghorn. But taking control away for something that is going to prone to faults just screams more accidents, and more injuries.
What about the people who don't have autobreaks? Your car slams on the breaks for seemingly no reason. I'm going to rear end your ass. And I will get a ticket, and my insurance will go up because your car's break sensor is buggy.... Not a great concept.
... you should be driving far enough behind the other car to stop when they do, even if they manually suddenly brake. That's, like, rule 1 of driving safety.