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

Post by kelipso » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 9:36 PM UTC

RIMR wrote: post #93

foxyv wrote: post #88

There is one safety feature that would universally make cars safer and not require radar or computers. Just simple speed governors based on geo-fencing and radio speed limit signs. It would be trivially easy to install on existing vehicles and much less expensive on new vehicles. In addition it would increase pedestrian safety by leaps and bounds. We do it for electric bicycles and scooters. Why not cars?

The first thing I hear people argue against is their "freedom" to drive their car without the government telling them what they can and cannot do. But you already don't have the freedom to drive as fast as you want, and the current enforcement system is to come face-to-face with a cop. I, personally, would prefer a system where my car physically will not allow me to drive over the speed limit. The problem though is t…

Post by foxyv » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 9:39 PM UTC

dymk wrote: post #92

foxyv wrote: post #88

There is one safety feature that would universally make cars safer and not require radar or computers. Just simple speed governors based on geo-fencing and radio speed limit signs. It would be trivially easy to install on existing vehicles and much less expensive on new vehicles. In addition it would increase pedestrian safety by leaps and bounds. We do it for electric bicycles and scooters. Why not cars?

> not require radar or computers > speed governors based on geo-fencing and radio speed limit signs sounds like that requires computers > We do it for electric bicycles and scooters I've never seen a scooter nor e-bike for sale that includes such a feature. Unless you're talking about rental scooters, which doesn't make sense to compare an owned car against.

Post by drozycki » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 9:42 PM UTC

grobbyy wrote: post #106

foxyv wrote: post #88

There is one safety feature that would universally make cars safer and not require radar or computers. Just simple speed governors based on geo-fencing and radio speed limit signs. It would be trivially easy to install on existing vehicles and much less expensive on new vehicles. In addition it would increase pedestrian safety by leaps and bounds. We do it for electric bicycles and scooters. Why not cars?

Because it would make roads less safe. It's very common to need to *accelerate* in emergency situations. Something like smart cruise control which drives the speed limit would be appreciated. A hard cap would not.

Post by foxyv » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 9:46 PM UTC

RIMR wrote: post #93

foxyv wrote: post #88

There is one safety feature that would universally make cars safer and not require radar or computers. Just simple speed governors based on geo-fencing and radio speed limit signs. It would be trivially easy to install on existing vehicles and much less expensive on new vehicles. In addition it would increase pedestrian safety by leaps and bounds. We do it for electric bicycles and scooters. Why not cars?

The first thing I hear people argue against is their "freedom" to drive their car without the government telling them what they can and cannot do. But you already don't have the freedom to drive as fast as you want, and the current enforcement system is to come face-to-face with a cop. I, personally, would prefer a system where my car physically will not allow me to drive over the speed limit. The problem though is t…

Post by foxyv » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 9:48 PM UTC

kelipso wrote: post #112

RIMR wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first thing I hear people argue against is their "freedom" to drive their car without the government telling them what they can and cannot do. But you already don't have the freedom to drive as fast as you want, and the current enforcement system is to come face-to-face with a cop. I, personally, would prefer a system where my car physically will not allow me to drive over the speed limit. The problem though is t…

Freedom is not an on off switch. You can argue against freedom under any context with that kind of argument. Seeing it as a min max problem is better. Maximize freedom while minimizing problems or something.