Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Keyless Cars and Their Carbon Monoxide Toll

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 303 posts

Re: Keyless Cars and Their Carbon Monoxide Toll

#121

Post by mturmon »

MereInterest wrote: post #115
yock wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...how many CO deaths from accidentally leaving the car running in the garage were happening before the introduction of key fobs vs. now. The great thing about the free market is that information spurs innovation. News stories like these make consumers aware of risks they couldn't recognize before. Now we, as informed buyers, can seek out these safety features in the products we buy.

Yeah, no. Humans are awful at estimating any low-probability event. That's why seatbelts and air bags took so long to catch on, despite being positive changes.

Well, in fairness, another big factor in the case of air bags for sure, and seat belts to an extent, is that the auto companies fought them (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970118).

Re: Keyless Cars and Their Carbon Monoxide Toll

#122

Post by rpcope1 »

peterwwillis wrote: post #91

Here's the thing: leaving a car running and unoccupied is, from an engineering perspective, completely stupid. Running a car on idle for a long time basically slowly degrades it. It's just sitting there getting hot and wasting gas. Without adequate cooling, the engine will overheat. And if you have multiple catalytic converters, the car can explode from built up gases. Many manuals explicitly state not to idle the ca…

> Running a car on idle for a long time basically slowly degrades it. It's just sitting there getting hot and wasting gas. Without adequate cooling, the engine will overheat. And if you have multiple catalytic converters, the car can explode from built up gases. Many manuals explicitly state not to idle the car for more than 10-20 minutes.

Do you have a citation for any of this? I think letting an engine idle for extended periods of time does run up the hours on the engine (if you've got the sort of engine where you would even think about adding an hour meter, anyways), but especially if not under a load, I would very, _very_ surprised if you incurred actual damage letting the engine just run. The cooling system on every car I've ever encountered is more the sufficient to keep the engine at the correct operating temperature indefinitely, even if it's real hot out.

Re: Keyless Cars and Their Carbon Monoxide Toll

#123

Post by [deleted] »

perl4ever wrote: post #57
dnautics wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've forgotten to leave with the keys, several times. Not so bad at work, which is in an office lot in suburban sleepytown, but kind of scary when I get back from paying a social call in a higher-petty-crime area like the Mission district.

My car (a Honda) won't lock with the button on the door handle if the key fob is inside, so I don't forget it.

[deleted]

Re: Keyless Cars and Their Carbon Monoxide Toll

#124

Post by dnautics »

perl4ever wrote: post #57
dnautics wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've forgotten to leave with the keys, several times. Not so bad at work, which is in an office lot in suburban sleepytown, but kind of scary when I get back from paying a social call in a higher-petty-crime area like the Mission district.

My car (a Honda) won't lock with the button on the door handle if the key fob is inside, so I don't forget it.

I don't have a button on my door handle.

Re: Keyless Cars and Their Carbon Monoxide Toll

#125

Post by [deleted] »

helloworld wrote: post #3

This is certainly an interesting case study in the pitfalls of behavioral design, but one important detail that the story glosses over is how rare these incidents are: More than two dozen people [have been] killed by carbon monoxide nationwide since 2006 after a keyless-ignition vehicle was inadvertently left running in a garage. On average, that's two deaths a year in a country of more than 260 million passenger veh…

[deleted]

Re: Keyless Cars and Their Carbon Monoxide Toll

#127

Post by [deleted] »

romwell wrote: post #80
helloworld wrote: post #3

This is certainly an interesting case study in the pitfalls of behavioral design, but one important detail that the story glosses over is how rare these incidents are: More than two dozen people [have been] killed by carbon monoxide nationwide since 2006 after a keyless-ignition vehicle was inadvertently left running in a garage. On average, that's two deaths a year in a country of more than 260 million passenger veh…

You are asking the wrong question here. The right question to ask is how many CO deaths from accidentally leaving the car running in the garage were happening before the introduction of key fobs vs. now. The difference amounts to the multitude of easily avoidable deaths that lie entirely on the auto manufacturer's shoulders. A dozen people is a dozen people too many. Stopping the engine when exiting the car with a fo…

[deleted]

Re: Keyless Cars and Their Carbon Monoxide Toll

#128

Post by ballenf »

romwell wrote: post #80
helloworld wrote: post #3

This is certainly an interesting case study in the pitfalls of behavioral design, but one important detail that the story glosses over is how rare these incidents are: More than two dozen people [have been] killed by carbon monoxide nationwide since 2006 after a keyless-ignition vehicle was inadvertently left running in a garage. On average, that's two deaths a year in a country of more than 260 million passenger veh…

You are asking the wrong question here. The right question to ask is how many CO deaths from accidentally leaving the car running in the garage were happening before the introduction of key fobs vs. now. The difference amounts to the multitude of easily avoidable deaths that lie entirely on the auto manufacturer's shoulders. A dozen people is a dozen people too many. Stopping the engine when exiting the car with a fo…

But it's not "stop killing people" vs. "keep killing people". It's is this improvement a higher priority than any of the other changes that would also save lives?

The bottom line calculation should be total $ / death prevented. And then compare that to any of the myriad other changes or improvements possible. Like the early warning crash systems (more expensive, but probably more lives saved). Or more airbags. Or backup cameras (to prevent people getting run over). Or drowsy/alertness sensors. Or more $$ for self-driving tech that could take over if a driver becomes incapacitated (long shot and long-term but huge payoff).

One other point on the auto-shutoff is that this could lead to the deaths of children in overheated cars where the parents had no clue the car would turn off by itself. The car should either turn off immediately or not at all, imo.

Finally, why not install CO detectors on the cars and shutoff the car then? It couldn't be too sensitive, but surely could tell the difference between an enclosed space and bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Re: Keyless Cars and Their Carbon Monoxide Toll

#129

Post by chrismcb »

romwell wrote: post #80
helloworld wrote: post #3

This is certainly an interesting case study in the pitfalls of behavioral design, but one important detail that the story glosses over is how rare these incidents are: More than two dozen people [have been] killed by carbon monoxide nationwide since 2006 after a keyless-ignition vehicle was inadvertently left running in a garage. On average, that's two deaths a year in a country of more than 260 million passenger veh…

You are asking the wrong question here. The right question to ask is how many CO deaths from accidentally leaving the car running in the garage were happening before the introduction of key fobs vs. now. The difference amounts to the multitude of easily avoidable deaths that lie entirely on the auto manufacturer's shoulders. A dozen people is a dozen people too many. Stopping the engine when exiting the car with a fo…

Stopping the engine when one exits the car is NOT consistent with the old physical key behavior. One had to actually turn the car off. I'm not sure how that is different today. Before you removed the key, nor you press a button. But you still had to take an action. It wasn't automatic

Re: Keyless Cars and Their Carbon Monoxide Toll

#130

Post by justin66 »

rpcope1 wrote: post #119
justin66 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On average, that's two deaths a year in a country of more than 260 million passenger vehicles.[1] These accidental deaths are tragic, but it's actually impressive how infrequently they occur. The deaths and injuries are utterly avoidable with decent design. Also, this is a feature that isn't prominent yet. The number of deaths is only going to get higher until the cars are built to turn the engine off under the rig…

> The number of deaths is only going to get higher until the cars are built to turn the engine off under the right conditions. I assume implicit to this statement, is that some heuristic algorithm needs to be created to turn the car off. This seems like a grossly over-complicated (and failure prone) solution in comparison to just using a key for the ignition instead. If you can do something easily with a strictly mec…

> I assume implicit to this statement, is that some heuristic algorithm needs to be created to turn the car off.

If you say so. I'm pretty sure just turning the car off if there's nobody sitting in any of the seats and the key is not in the car would be a good start.

Post reply on HN