371–380 of 401 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many people lift their foot from the brake pedal the first time they experience the antilock system activating?
The first time you experience that should be around the third or fourth driving lesson.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Good regulation would only mandate a driver warning Then you must be in favour of this regulation. From the article: > The EU regulations permit a system that can use a cascaded acoustic warning, a cascaded vibrating warning, an accelerator pedal with haptic feedback, or a speed control function in which the speed of the vehicle will be gradually reduced [...] the first two options may not quite compel any actual c…
> The EU regulations permit The very thing you quoted has reduced control authority as points three and four! They're dangerous inclusions. It should have stopped with the audible warning, the vibrating feedback has the potential to be dangerous but isn't automatically. I'm on board with speed warnings in cars. They're helpful in cars where it's easy to speed. My partner's ICE car has a turbocharger and a very smooth…
What you suggest would impose manufacturers who want to do 3 and 4 must also do option 1 or 2, which would make them unreasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if every car is following the speed limit, that is going as fast as they are allowed, why would any one person be passing someone else?
if the car is going slower than the limit but you have a very limited window of time to pass it, the only way is to temporarily go above the speed limit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if every car is following the speed limit, that is going as fast as they are allowed, why would any one person be passing someone else?
Roads commonly carry traffic at a different speeds than listed speed based on actual conditions, perception of conditions, condition and nature of vehicles and because speeds are often set inefficienctly. Its not uncommon to see stretches with traffic constantly packed 4+ lanes going 75+ each way. Trying to put the same burden of vehicles through at 65 with 300 ft between would be a joke. A given lane would carry les…
I don't understand your point about having to slow down to follow at a safe distance. If I pull onto a highway and find myself _right_ behind someone I can decrease my speed by one or two mph to fall back to a safe following distance. How is that not safe? The car behind me, who should already be either already at a safe distance or adjusting their own distance should have no issues here.
What I think you mean to say is that because you're assuming that everyone else on the road is behaving in an unsafe manner you believe that you, too, have to behave in an unsafe manner. This simply is not the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Roads commonly carry traffic at a different speeds than listed speed based on actual conditions, perception of conditions, condition and nature of vehicles and because speeds are often set inefficienctly. Its not uncommon to see stretches with traffic constantly packed 4+ lanes going 75+ each way. Trying to put the same burden of vehicles through at 65 with 300 ft between would be a joke. A given lane would carry les…
If we're concerned with traffic throughput then shouldn't we just increase the allowed speed? Why even have a limit in the first place? I don't understand your point about having to slow down to follow at a safe distance. If I pull onto a highway and find myself _right_ behind someone I can decrease my speed by one or two mph to fall back to a safe following distance. How is that not safe? The car behind me, who shou…
Areas that are already burdened as far as the amount of traffic they can bear, which is basically every major urban area in America, see traffic moving at a high rate of speed with 20-30 feet between cars.
Picture a simple chute in which you are dumping jelly beans one at a time. Even at the same speed of descent you will be able to drop 1/3 of the beans if you wait 3 seconds between drops instead of 1. Everyone trying to keep 300 feet between to be "safe" would create an expanding parking lot behind that would crash the entire traffic systems ability to function at all.
When everyone started arriving 3 hours late for work businesses would fine themselves dysfunctional including critical businesses. People would die because emergency vehicles couldn't move. The mayor would be on TV discussing what they would do about the collective insanity.
Anyway this is an awfully long way to say people do need the ability to control the speed of their car in order for the current flawed highway system to function normally. People do actually have cause to pass. They sometimes do have a reason to drive slower than the limit. Others need to exceed it briefly or in an emergency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a subtle change of framing; I'm talking about this idea of the thing as a 'pre-crime' tool. I agree that the implementation you describe (ex. a hard cap on speed based on ex. GPS speed limit data) is a 'bad idea', but I don't agree that it's like a 'big brother bad idea', just that it's a bad implementation of an otherwise normal idea. There's plenty of ways one can imagine a gentle system of pushback against…
I agree, if it's just a reminder, it's not as bad, it's just a step in the wrong direction. If they then change it to prevent you from breaking the limit, that will really be a nightmare scenario.
But your ability to break the limit is fully predicted on the capabilities of the car? It's not like it's some kind of natural right you have to go 80 in a 65, you need someone to make and sell you a vehicle which will do that for you, and regulatory bodies limit the capabilities of consumer goods all the time (ex. radio transmitter devices).
Again say they required a mechanical governor in the car which capped the limit at say 60mph for all vehicles sold, it's going to prevent you from accelerating faster than that always (so no 'braking' at any point, but at 60mph your engine will no longer by able to apply acceleration). Is this also a nightmare scenario? Or is it specifically the telemetry required to localize that to the roadway speed limit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, if it's just a reminder, it's not as bad, it's just a step in the wrong direction. If they then change it to prevent you from breaking the limit, that will really be a nightmare scenario.
> If they then change it to prevent you from breaking the limit But your ability to break the limit is fully predicted on the capabilities of the car? It's not like it's some kind of natural right you have to go 80 in a 65, you need someone to make and sell you a vehicle which will do that for you, and regulatory bodies limit the capabilities of consumer goods all the time (ex. radio transmitter devices). Again say t…
That's why this is a nightmare scenario. You have an unthinking, unfeeling machine enforcing laws, without regard for nuance or extenuating circumstances. Laws shouldn't work that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they then change it to prevent you from breaking the limit But your ability to break the limit is fully predicted on the capabilities of the car? It's not like it's some kind of natural right you have to go 80 in a 65, you need someone to make and sell you a vehicle which will do that for you, and regulatory bodies limit the capabilities of consumer goods all the time (ex. radio transmitter devices). Again say t…
That's not so much a nightmare scenario as it is a car that's not fit for purpose. Making the car always obey the speed limit assumes that a) speed limits are always correct (they are definitely not) and b) there is never a valid reason to exceed the speed limit (also obviously wrong). That's why this is a nightmare scenario. You have an unthinking, unfeeling machine enforcing laws, without regard for nuance or exten…
Moreover, you continue to frame this as a 'subtractive' restriction, taking away something that a person has access to by default. But technology regulation like this is capping the 'additive' function of a tool. Cars add to your capabilities, and this regulation limits the extent to which they do that. Circling back to my previous point, it's tough for me to think of a case where limitations applied to your technological augmentation qualify as a 'harm', especially given the nature of the specific tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not so much a nightmare scenario as it is a car that's not fit for purpose. Making the car always obey the speed limit assumes that a) speed limits are always correct (they are definitely not) and b) there is never a valid reason to exceed the speed limit (also obviously wrong). That's why this is a nightmare scenario. You have an unthinking, unfeeling machine enforcing laws, without regard for nuance or exten…
I dunno I take issue with (b), I think you're leaning too hard on "obviously". IMO it's reasonable to say that like 70MPH is the fastest a car is allowed to possibly go on public roads and cap it there. Possibly I lack imagination, but what's the actual harm that results from that? I can see cases where it would be inconvenient, but actually harmful in a way that warrants an exemption? On its face that seems pretty u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno I take issue with (b), I think you're leaning too hard on "obviously". IMO it's reasonable to say that like 70MPH is the fastest a car is allowed to possibly go on public roads and cap it there. Possibly I lack imagination, but what's the actual harm that results from that? I can see cases where it would be inconvenient, but actually harmful in a way that warrants an exemption? On its face that seems pretty u…
Someone has a heart attack and I have to rush them to the hospital.