151–160 of 512 posts
A feature that lets an adversary take control of your car in this way is known as a bug.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it makes perfect sense to tightly regulate automobiles Not the way we do it, it doesn't. What it does make sense to do is put the liability for harm where it belongs: on those who actually cause harm. But the vast majority of our automobile regulations--I include traffic laws in this category--do not do that. The regulation proposed here is an example.
Nonsense. Better than worrying about liability of the harm that happens, is reducing the amount of harm that happens. To argue otherwise is silly.
Furthermore, government institutions, particularly in the post-COVID era, simply lack credibility when they make claims about some government mandate reducing harm. In this case, as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, NHTSA's claims about harm reduction assume that these systems will always operate perfectly and will never cause any harm, only prevent it. Such an assumption is not credible.
In short, I do not share your faith in the ability of government regulators to actually reduce harm, on net. More generally, I do not share your faith in the ability of governments to actually act in the interest of all the people, instead of benefiting the governments themselves and particular special interests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of the safety devices you mention were bought by many consumers before they were required by regulations. Why? Because they are obvious benefits with no real downside. In fact, the only reason regulators were able to require things like anti-lock brakes and seat belts on all cars was that the vast majority of cars already had them, because the vast majority of drivers already recognized their benefits. They didn'…
As a sibling post said, this is not that accurate, all told. I specifically remember similar argument against anti-lock brakes when those were first made. To your credit, I have never heard anyone say bad things about rear view cameras. It is scary how many lives that has to have saved by now. Now, I have heard complaints on cruise control. I don't see that going away any time soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of the safety devices you mention were bought by many consumers before they were required by regulations. Why? Because they are obvious benefits with no real downside. In fact, the only reason regulators were able to require things like anti-lock brakes and seat belts on all cars was that the vast majority of cars already had them, because the vast majority of drivers already recognized their benefits. They didn'…
The car industry fought seatbelts and airbags. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/06/archives/industry-resists... Your claims about widespread voluntary adoption appear false. https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance > At the time, only 14 percent of Americans regularly wore seat belts, even though the federal government required lap and shoulder belts in all new cars starting in 1968.
Regulatory capture marches forward. In an environment where small, cheap, runabout electric vehicles could become very popular, I expect lots of "for your safety" reasons why cars have to be complicated and expensive.
Multi-ton vehicles capable of moving at highway speeds are dangerous and kill roughly a hundred people a day in the US[1]. So whether these changes are driven by regulatory capture or not it makes perfect sense to tightly regulate automobiles. Personally I think consumers should be free to decide things like seatbelt and airbag use but if they drive on public roadways they should not be allowed to make cost/benefit t…
There are tons of modes in this data. Assessing all crash fatalities as some sort of "general" problem you can target misses this fact.
The single greatest thing you could do to reduce fatalities is to eliminate drunk and impaired driving.
This almost got me into a serious accident, twice. Definitely would not recommend and I switched cars because of it. The last thing I need is buggy software with the capability of instantly changing the trajectory of my vehicle (slippery surfaces, cornering). A brand car as well (MB) so really, really disappointed, what should have been a safety feature actually was the opposite. Dealer said everything was fine so th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of the safety devices you mention were bought by many consumers before they were required by regulations. Why? Because they are obvious benefits with no real downside. In fact, the only reason regulators were able to require things like anti-lock brakes and seat belts on all cars was that the vast majority of cars already had them, because the vast majority of drivers already recognized their benefits. They didn'…
The car industry fought seatbelts and airbags. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/06/archives/industry-resists... Your claims about widespread voluntary adoption appear false. https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance > At the time, only 14 percent of Americans regularly wore seat belts, even though the federal government required lap and shoulder belts in all new cars starting in 1968.
But, as far as I can tell from the article, the industry is not fighting this regulation.
This almost got me into a serious accident, twice. Definitely would not recommend and I switched cars because of it. The last thing I need is buggy software with the capability of instantly changing the trajectory of my vehicle (slippery surfaces, cornering). A brand car as well (MB) so really, really disappointed, what should have been a safety feature actually was the opposite. Dealer said everything was fine so th…
this seems like the sort of thing that would be better measured with actual numbers, not just anecdotes from people on the internet. the NHTSA is a pretty cautious organization, and they like numbers. if they've studied it and found that automatic braking will prevent 24000 crashes and 360 deaths per year, i'd be inclined to believe them. having the car brake for me when i'm not expecting it sounds kind of scary to m…
I experienced it multiple times and not even once it triggered in a correct situation. Usually a weird angle on a t-junction triggers it unnecessarily.
This feature once saved me from what would have otherwise been a very nasty crash, many years ago. I was driving too fast in a borrowed car over a small hill and hadn't realized that traffic had stopped just out of my sight until too late. I heard a beep and saw flashing on my dash and I started braking but a moment later the emergency braking system kicked in, braking much harder than I would have been able to. The…
> braking much harder than I would have been able to Any idea why you weren't able to apply full brakes? I remember reading that most people don't in an emergency and that's why the emergency brake boost was created, but haven't seen the reason for it.