Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sirus]

I'm of two minds on backup cameras (bear in mind that I do not have one and neither do my family's vehicles, as they are all too old).

On the one hand, I fully recognize how useful they can be. I imagine they make parallel parking a good deal easier, and they're much safer when backing in a parking lot or wherever, especially if kids or pets are around. Hell, I wish my truck had one for some really tricky backing jobs; hard to see past a 53' trailer that's taller than you are, even with all the extra mirrors on a big rig.

On the other hand I'm afraid that mandating them in new vehicles will only encourage bad habits. People already fail to pay attention to what's behind them far too much for my liking, never using the rearview or wing mirrors let alone looking over their shoulders. I worry drivers who get into the habit of staring at a screen on their dashboard instead of taking some proper looks around will never get into the habit of looking around at all. This will become extra detrimental if (when) those fiddly electronic bits glitch out or break down, and suddenly the crutch of being able to see exactly what is behind you is taken away.

I try not to be an old man yelling at clouds for the world being different, but I don't think encouraging lazy behavior in people operating several-ton machines is the way to go. People are lazy sometimes, and will latch onto conveniences. This isn't being judgemental; I do it too, all the time! The problem comes when those conveniences are suddenly absent - will newer drivers who grew up with these things be able to manage without?

[EuchreJack]

...like back-up cameras are the Auto tech that Americans need to be worried about. ::Dems want Dino Fuel Cars Gone::

[Sirus]

Oh I doubt they'll disappear completely any time soon, if only because renewable energy is somewhat location-dependent and fossil fuels are a convenient power source for those other areas. But if we can reduce fossil fuel usage (and therefore our dependency on certain nations we don't particularly like), then that's a worthy goal. Just having some cleaner air would make it worth considering.

[MrRoboto75]

It's only because American culture long long ago discarded a more obvious solution to car fatalities: less fucking cars everywhere

[EuchreJack]

Oh I doubt they'll disappear completely any time soon, if only because renewable energy is somewhat location-dependent and fossil fuels are a convenient power source for those other areas. But if we can reduce fossil fuel usage (and therefore our dependency on certain nations we don't particularly like), then that's a worthy goal. Just having some cleaner air would make it worth considering.

Uh, no.

Either the Dems will say "Thou MUST!" and it'll happen regardless of the human suffering involved, or it won't happen at all.

[McTraveller]

What's wrong with wanting "dino cars" gone? Before I switched to an EV, I didn't realize all the annoying things about ICE cars[2].  The only things ICE cars do better than EVs right now is charging time and consistency of fuel economy across seasons[1][3].  That's it.  Everything else, hands down the EVs win.  Even if you factor in environmental costs of batteries - they are still better than the environmental costs of building ICEs and maintaining the liquid-fuel industry.

Also if you're a die-hard survivalist, it's way simpler to make your own electricity than it is to produce your own liquid fuel.

[1] Oddly enough this is a side effect of the higher efficiency of the EV - ICE vehicles have such a high waste factor, they are less sensitive to environmental loads; and the waste heat is available for winter heating, when it's not available in the EV.

[2] The car doesn't have a hot exhaust. It doesn't smell, it doesn't need oil changes, it doesn't need emissions inspections. It's quiet. Simpler mechanicals.

[3] I don't mention range, because range is really just a function of refueling time. Once we get as many charging stations as gas stations and charging times get another halving this will not be a meaningful factor.

EDIT: oddly, car fatalities in the US were on a downward trend until we had more ADAS systems, lulling people into a false sense of security.

[Dostoevsky]

EDIT: oddly, car fatalities in the US were on a downward trend until we had more ADAS systems, lulling people into a false sense of security.

While I do like rear cameras, I do not like ADAS stuff. I'd consider them pretty different types of features.

[Frumple]

Eh... it's not guaranteed it's due to the ADAS systems, though. We've also had an upward trend in shitty, lethal car design, too, e.g. those fucking trucks with cliff faces for a front that's currently inflating our pedestrian death numbers.

It may be correlation instead of causation, and there's also the possibility ADAS stuff is working to reduce fatalities... just not hard enough to fully offset the intentionally lethal horseshit folks have been buying in increased numbers for the last while.

[Sirus]

Oh I doubt they'll disappear completely any time soon, if only because renewable energy is somewhat location-dependent and fossil fuels are a convenient power source for those other areas. But if we can reduce fossil fuel usage (and therefore our dependency on certain nations we don't particularly like), then that's a worthy goal. Just having some cleaner air would make it worth considering.

Uh, no.

Either the Dems will say "Thou MUST!" and it'll happen regardless of the human suffering involved, or it won't happen at all.

Yes, because history is full of instances of the "Dems" going THOU MUST and immediately enforcing their will with absolutely no pushback. That's why we all drive electric vehicles, and why we run a zero carbon emissions power grid, why healthcare in this country has been revolutionized, and why mass shootings are finally decreasing after sane gun laws was enacted, and...oh wait, none of that has happened. Silly me. It's almost like the legislation is so hysterically partisan that we can't get anything accomplished without incredible amounts of human suffering.

Going back to actual issues with cars instead of imagined ones, again I do not have any ADAS devices in my personal vehicle. My work truck is however loaded with them, and speaking as someone who (again) trained without them I can't stand most of their features. Lane departure warnings are good in theory...but the vast majority of the time they go off from false positives. Did a lane next to me merge into mine? It goes off. Does an off-ramp split off from my lane, even if I'm still going straight? It goes off. Is there road work requiring lanes to shift? Oh boy does it go off. I've had it go off while I was changing lanes with the appropriate turn signal active, which is supposed to be when it doesn't go off.
Collision warning has the same issues. I have forward and passenger side sensors that are supposed to alert me if there's something I'm in danger of hitting. I think I can count on one hand the number of times that either of them, combined, have alerted me to the potential of actual danger in the past couple years. The number of false positives, I lose track of on a daily basis. If there is anything, at all, within like 50 feet of my passenger side when I turn on the right turn signal, the damn thing could go off. Repeatedly. It sees my own trailer and freaks out with insistent beeps no matter how wide I take a particular turn. I can be following a right hand curve in the road, staying perfectly within my lane, and if there's a vehicle in the lane next to me it freaks out.
The forward detection is the worst because if it thinks there's something I'm about to hit, even if the road is perfectly and visibly clear, it will not only scream at me but also trigger the brakes unless I override the thing.

Basically I don't really trust ADAS systems in their current incarnation. Not for any Orwellian surveillance sort of reasons, they just don't work worth a damn.

[McTraveller]

Pedestrian injuries actually track more with the ubiquity of cellular devices and population density, not the larger vehicles.  The larger vehicles just make the consequences more severe.

Weeding through the studies is difficult though, because all the ones I can find are very biased... mostly the companies making ADAS systems saying it's worth it.  Basically if it's a feature that does not require human intervention it improves things, but if it's a feature that permits a reduction in situational awareness it makes things worse.  The bit about false positives is important too - too many false positives, and people just ignore true positives.

I'm going to call you out on being too hyperbolic saying these are "intentionally lethal" design choices. There are not secret meetings in the auto companies saying "hahah wouldn't it be cool if we make the most dangerous cars we can? That would surely make us more wealthy!"

[MrRoboto75]

Car makers would eschew safety features if it ment a cheaper to produce car.

[Frumple]

I'm going to call you out on being too hyperbolic saying these are "intentionally lethal" design choices. There are not secret meetings in the auto companies saying "hahah wouldn't it be cool if we make the most dangerous cars we can? That would surely make us more wealthy!"

I've seen the commentary about preferring vehicles more likely to squish anything in runs into often enough I'm well sick of it, and design that accommodates that preference is plainly evident. There's not meetings like that, but there are ones that see specific demand for features that make things more deadly for people and go, "Let's get some of that."

[nenjin]

On the other hand I'm afraid that mandating them in new vehicles will only encourage bad habits. People already fail to pay attention to what's behind them far too much for my liking, never using the rearview or wing mirrors let alone looking over their shoulders. I worry drivers who get into the habit of staring at a screen on their dashboard instead of taking some proper looks around will never get into the habit of looking around at all. This will become extra detrimental if (when) those fiddly electronic bits glitch out or break down, and suddenly the crutch of being able to see exactly what is behind you is taken away.

The fact backup cameras have a fish-eye lens that lets you see extreme angles behind you in my mind invalidates most other concerns. Yeah, if you're looking at your backup camera you might not see someone standing directly next to your car while you're backing out......but basically anything you could see by craning your neck in your car, your backup cam already shows you. Incredibly useful for backing out of a parking spot and being able to see someone 50 feet away driving too fast and know that you should just wait.

EDIT: oddly, car fatalities in the US were on a downward trend until we had more ADAS systems, lulling people into a false sense of security.

While I do like rear cameras, I do not like ADAS stuff. I'd consider them pretty different types of features.

Agreed on this though. All the driving assistance features are not necessary IF you already pay attention. Collision warnings, road drift, speed limit notifications....none of that is necessary for a competent driver who is actually paying attention. And frankly, for how much time you have to react I don't feel like those features are really all that useful. The road drift might be useful if you're sleepy at the wheel.....but then again you SHOULDNT be driving in that state anyways.

[McTraveller]

Yeah that stuff about building a vehicle to destroy things it hits is apocryphal for the most part.  However, there is new knowledge about not just working on crumple zones, etc. for occupants but also for external agents. So that is coming, things like bumper strike height or whatever they call it, new regs, etc.

Back to old topic: I'm astonished at how the mass media is basically ensuring panic related to the looming credit limit issue. They only share stories of quotes from people who are panicking, and they never include quotes from people who are like "yeah it will be bad, but if you do these things, it's really not going to be the end of the world."

Everything is so extreme... it's wearisome.

[Dostoevsky]

The main (well, one) issue with the debt ceiling is nobody is really sure how bad it will be, partly because it depends on how much the financial sector (as an amorphous blob-entity) chooses to panic about it. There are various guaranteed bad outcomes that are much smaller than 'global economic implosion', but said implosion could happen.

That said there's no reason to be unconcerned about the debt ceiling 'hitting', especially if you're concerned about the financial livelihood of the US. The long-term impacts from loss of credit rating / etc. are much bigger than the claimed gains the giant silly wishlist bill the House Republicans put together.