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

U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 181 posts

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#71

Post by Spartan-S63 »

pjc50 wrote: post #12

All this technology has the effect of pushing up the cost of vehicles, often for questionable minor safety improvements. Is there a good analysis of why the road safety trend has gone the wrong way in the US lately?

I think there's one of two ways to make roadways safer:

1. Add these safety feature mandates that increase the price of vehicles 2. Move towards banning larger and larger vehicles and create limits on height and clearance for non-commercial vehicles.

The latter doesn't seem politically popular, so the former is the only choice.

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#72

Post by Germanion »

Rinzler89 wrote: post #56
Germanion wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is not right... And no you don't need constantly a growing economy. Hey our model only works if we continue growing our x every year. Do you know what it means if something grows 2% per year?

>And no you don't need constantly a growing economy. Communism tried that and it doesn't really work well, especially now in a globalized economy when you're competing with growing economies for limited resources and who can outspend you if you're not growing more than them. You don't need a growing economy only if you can be 100% self suficient, which virtually no country is (US comes the closest), or you're OK with…

It feels to me that we will not go far in this discussion tbh.

For me the growth means a mix of things like being more productive, increasing life standards etc but we have great life standars.

Japan has a high living standard too and no to negative growth.

Either there is some magic economic model you will not be able to explain to me in this format (wall of text / necessary university degree/ just too much) or I will not change my opinion on this rat race thing.

Your point of other countries outbidding us on resources is that really the main argument for necessary economy growth?

At least for software engineering that's not true.

Farming probably hasn't changed that much in the last 20 years either.

The growth discussion is for me as shitty as all those news about share prices. Random stocks get mentioned in the news for random reasons while apparently the best way to invest in shares is to not bother with daily trends at all.

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#73

Post by Rinzler89 »

Germanion wrote: post #72
Rinzler89 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And no you don't need constantly a growing economy. Communism tried that and it doesn't really work well, especially now in a globalized economy when you're competing with growing economies for limited resources and who can outspend you if you're not growing more than them. You don't need a growing economy only if you can be 100% self suficient, which virtually no country is (US comes the closest), or you're OK with…

It feels to me that we will not go far in this discussion tbh. For me the growth means a mix of things like being more productive, increasing life standards etc but we have great life standars. Japan has a high living standard too and no to negative growth. Either there is some magic economic model you will not be able to explain to me in this format (wall of text / necessary university degree/ just too much) or I wi…

>For me the growth means

A country's economic growth means something deferent than what it means to you.

>a mix of things like being more productive, increasing life standards etc but we have great life standars.

And to fund all those things you usually need a higher GDP, not a lower one.

>Japan has a high living standard too and no to negative growth.

Do you live in Japan to confirm this "high standard of living", or are you gonna throw a google search in my face as the argument?

Why do you think a country doesn't need more money to provide a better life for its citizens? Do you see poorer countries providing excellent life?

>Your point of other countries outbidding us on resources is that really the main argument for necessary economy growth?

What's your point against this? Are you gonna provide any arguments here?

>At least for software engineering that's not true.

Good luck eating software. Or living inside software. Or driving software to work.

The world needs far more than software to function. Go out and touch some grass.

>Farming probably hasn't changed that much in the last 20 years either.

But weather, the environment and the geopolitics have. A lot. And now you have more mouths to feed to boot.

>It feels to me that we will not go far in this discussion tbh.

I agree. You're far too clueless and out of touch with reality.

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#74

Post by drawkward »

willcipriano wrote: post #68
drawkward wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if true, who cares, if it means fewer preventable fatalities?

"If we can save one life, it's worth it" is part of the reason everything is so expensive in the US. People forget that poverty is also deadly and don't factor that into the calculation.

I'd argue that profit margins are more to blame here.

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#75

Post by RhysU »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #57

Why are people commenting on Hacker News so negative? This is a progressive, good idea. It will save 24,000 injuries a year. I think if Hacker News was around when seat-belts were invented there would be some looney tunes claiming it's an abuse of first amendment rights or some rubbish. The next thing should be mandatory lane keeping.

I misjudged a tight pass on the highway this past weekend. It was stupid on my part but I will faux righteously blame the clown camping in the passing lane.

My car's warning system lost its mind as I approached the car in the right lane. I accelerated through the situation and into the left lane because I knew speeding up was contextually appropriate.

Had the car possessed an automatic braking system, the car disastrously would have jammed on the brakes with me mid-lane-change. That would not have been pretty in heavy highway traffic.

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#76

Post by kyleee »

drawkward wrote: post #44
jajko wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this technology ain't mature in any way, 99% or 99,9% is simply not good enough to deploy anywhere en masse. Lane assists, braking, collision recognition - I've seen false positives, I've seen no reaction where there should be one. By far the safest driving for me is simply having experience and no assistants enabled, ever. I know this begs question how to get to that level, these flawed helpers can maybe statis…

Yet, those 1% or 0.1% false positives, even if they kill the car's occupants, may still reduce the aggregate number of deaths. I expect government to make choices that are best for society at large, rather than for any individual.

That’s fine as long as it’s opt in at the individual level.

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#77

Post by err4nt »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #64
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a progressive, good idea. It will save 24,000 injuries a year. This is what it is promised it will do. What it will do is what it can, with the resources that are left over for development and safety - once shareholders and execs are satisfied (per scotus: Dodge vs Ford).

Sorry but your comment makes no sense.

I think the person is saying there may be a vast difference between what's marketed and promised, and how projects like these have historically under-delivered or failed.

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#78

Post by Germanion »

Rinzler89 wrote: post #73
Germanion wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels to me that we will not go far in this discussion tbh. For me the growth means a mix of things like being more productive, increasing life standards etc but we have great life standars. Japan has a high living standard too and no to negative growth. Either there is some magic economic model you will not be able to explain to me in this format (wall of text / necessary university degree/ just too much) or I wi…

>For me the growth means A country's economic growth means something deferent than what it means to you. >a mix of things like being more productive, increasing life standards etc but we have great life standars. And to fund all those things you usually need a higher GDP, not a lower one. >Japan has a high living standard too and no to negative growth. Do you live in Japan to confirm this "high standard of living", o…

I went to Japan and know how it is there.

I'm also from a farm, I'm quite familiar with farming efficiency and I'm not aware of anything big happened in the last 20 years which reflects any real growth.

Germany didn't get more land in the last 20 years.

And I myself as a software engineer probably added to the growth of the bip in Germany.

If you are not even able to bring your point across, why do you believe so strong in economcial growth?

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#79

Post by Rinzler89 »

Germanion wrote: post #78
Rinzler89 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For me the growth means A country's economic growth means something deferent than what it means to you. >a mix of things like being more productive, increasing life standards etc but we have great life standars. And to fund all those things you usually need a higher GDP, not a lower one. >Japan has a high living standard too and no to negative growth. Do you live in Japan to confirm this "high standard of living", o…

I went to Japan and know how it is there. I'm also from a farm, I'm quite familiar with farming efficiency and I'm not aware of anything big happened in the last 20 years which reflects any real growth. Germany didn't get more land in the last 20 years. And I myself as a software engineer probably added to the growth of the bip in Germany. If you are not even able to bring your point across, why do you believe so str…

[flagged]

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#80

Post by shrimp_emoji »

jajko wrote: post #37
rascul wrote: post #28

The only experience I have with automatic emergency braking was with a large box truck several years ago. It was quite horrible, false positives often, and never was necessary. Once it braked for no apparent reason while going downhill around a turn and almost caused us to wreck since the truck didn't turn as well under heavy braking. I hope better implementations exist.

Yeah this technology ain't mature in any way, 99% or 99,9% is simply not good enough to deploy anywhere en masse. Lane assists, braking, collision recognition - I've seen false positives, I've seen no reaction where there should be one. By far the safest driving for me is simply having experience and no assistants enabled, ever. I know this begs question how to get to that level, these flawed helpers can maybe statis…

> It seems older cars will keep their value for quite some time. I am actively beginning to hate all new development in cars

s/cars/things/g

Post reply on HN