| |
| ▲ | Reason077 2 days ago | parent [-] | | As long as the vehicle behind you is also equipped with AEB, you should be ok. | | |
| ▲ | reassess_blind 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, let’s hope that motorcycle has AEB. | | |
| ▲ | smus 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You think a motorcycle will do serious damage to a car driver when rear ending? | | |
| ▲ | whatevaa 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Infinitely more damage than if not rear ended. Don't brake check on a highway. Also, semi-trucks exist. | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Emotional damage when they hit the inside of your front windshield like ground beef |
| |
| ▲ | Reason077 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's coming. Already mandatory for all new motorcycles in some countries. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If you try to brake a motorcycle as fast as you would a car, it has a tendency to flip over. And in general different vehicles have different stopping distances, so "just have the whole line of cars all panic brake at once" is going to have them smashing into each other. | | |
| ▲ | ninalanyon 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Only if they are all driving too close the the car in front. If you keep to the recommended 3 seconds separation you will most often be fine even in bad weather. I drive my Tesla S on Autopilot with the separation set to the maximum which is about 3 seconds and it makes for a comfortable motorway driving experience. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse a day ago | parent [-] | | How close cars are to each other is generally determined by traffic volume. If there are twice as many cars, they can only be half as far apart because otherwise they can't physically fit on the same length of road. If you try to leave more space than that, other cars will merge into the empty space. The only way to actually do it overall is to reduce the traffic volume (or add more lanes), which is not something an individual driver has any control over. Which is to say, in practice cars will be following too closely whenever there is high traffic volume, and systems that don't work under real life conditions are broken. |
|
| |
| ▲ | reassess_blind a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | A motorcycle that emergency brakes without warning? If my bike did that I’d be going over the handlebars. There are no seatbelts here. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | NikolaNovak 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Is there a lane assist that won't let you change lanes? I've driven several brands and they just shake wheel or exert like 5% gentle nudge. But maybe there are brands that will actually forcefully prevent lane change without signal (which is automatic / reflexive for most people who'd have good reflexes but I digress). I'm not at all saying that all Automation is good or that cars always know better than me, but I do want to understand if this is a made-up strawman argument or has anybody ever actually failed to change lanes due to lane assist. | | |
| ▲ | dgfitz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | To be fair I do not know, never driven one. Seems like the slippery slope has already been paved with good intentions though. | | |
| ▲ | NikolaNovak 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm a techie, I loved my 2004 wrx for good two decades, but which slippery slope are we discussing here? Putting a black box in your car that records everything without my consent - I'm with you on slippery slopes and ulterior motives. A gentle gentle nudge that helps me on long distances - I'm honestly not with you :-/ | | |
| ▲ | whatevaa 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Last I heard, not all cars are "gentle". Implementation depended. | | |
| ▲ | NikolaNovak 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Fair possibility, that's why my question here is - did anybody actually experience a car that won't let you change lanes easily without a turning signal? I've driven Toyota, Ford, subaru and kia off the top of my head and while e.g. Toyota feels rougher than Honda, none of them approach anything that would even remotely stop, prevent, or even slow me down if I really want to change lanes, let alone if I did it forcefully in emergency. Can't speak for other brands and I definitely never drive a Tesla :-) |
|
| |
| ▲ | aaomidi 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | lol so you’re just making shit up? |
|
| |
| ▲ | beAbU 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You are arguing in bad faith. You are also creating a straw man argument attempting to rubbish a feature that works acceptably well in 99% other use cases even if your scenario is legitimate. If there is a blind corner you should slow down enough that you can safely stop if there are obstacles in the road. You don't know what's in the oncoming lane, so you can't assume that it'll be safe to blindly swerve into it to avoid something in your lane. Secondly, lane keeping does not lock your steering wheel preventing you from changing lanes if you need to. The additional force required to override it is the difference between steering with your pinky and gripping the wheel with your hand. | |
| ▲ | raincole 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So after manslaughter you are now committing perjury? This is not how lane assist works. Like, not at all. | | |
| ▲ | dgfitz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think the dead guy will be in the courtroom. Clever try though. | | |
| |
| ▲ | kace91 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's a completely different discussion. OP was asking why not let him lower standards for cheaper price, not discussing the standard's quality. | |
| ▲ | dijksterhuis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | you do realise that most people slow down for blind curves for exactly this reason, right? pre-empt potential dangers and adjust driving accordingly. if you’re concerned that you might have to act due to an unseen/unknown danger — then slow down. it shouldn’t be necessary to swerve out when driving except as a choice of absolute last resort (ie something/someone jumped in front of you inside braking distance and you’ve got no other safe option, in which case you’re probably fucked anyway). | | |
| ▲ | raincole 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > you do realise that most people slow down for blind curves for exactly this reason, right? The parent commenter sounds exactly like one of those who don't slow down for blind curves. | | |
| ▲ | dgfitz 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You can take a blind curve at 15 miles an hour and not have time to avoid debris in the road. Use some critical thinking. | | |
| ▲ | beAbU 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | At 15mph most cars should be able to stop on a dime, no? | | |
| ▲ | dijksterhuis 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | extrapolating a little, 15mph is ~<10m Speed | Thinking + braking distance | Stopping distance 20mph | 6m + 6m | 12m (40 feet) 30mph | 9m + 14m | 23m (75 feet) 40mph | 12m + 24m | 36m (118 feet) 50mph | 15m + 38m | 53m (174 feet) 60mph | 18m + 55m | 73m (240 feet) 70mph | 21m + 75m | 96m (315 feet) > https://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/advice/stopping-distan... note that the braking distances are not for modern cars with advancements in braking tech etc. | |
| ▲ | dgfitz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you’d meet me halfway on this, it’s not some bizarro-world scenario. It really isn’t. |
| |
| ▲ | dijksterhuis 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | then 15 mph is probably too fast for that blind curve as it was not possible to see the danger. it’s fairly simple logic. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fortunately automatic emergency braking is another tech that hopefully your car also has. | | |
| ▲ | dgfitz 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I will buy used cars that don’t auto-anything for me until I literally cannot find one anymore. Then I’ll buy a tune to remove the feature. | | |
| ▲ | esseph 3 days ago | parent [-] | | This sounds like it'd be a good way to lose your license in the future, and maybe have a criminal court case if there was an significant accident that could have been prevented by said features you disabled. | | |
| ▲ | DaSHacka 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Only criminals need to modify their car. Now accept our integrated telemetry gathering that reports directly to LexisNexis so insurance companies can raise your rates [0]. Surely you understand, think of the children! [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driv... | | |
| ▲ | esseph 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Nobody had said anything about telemetry, so far. The rest of us are talking about actual safety features. | | |
| ▲ | DaSHacka 2 days ago | parent [-] | | They're often one and the same in newer vehicles, unfortunately. Criminalizing modifying your own car only stands to benefit the corporations that salivate at the mouth thinking of the data mining opportunities. | | |
| ▲ | messe 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Criminalizing driving cars with certain modifications on public roads serves to benefit other people on the road, pedestrians, and society as a whole. | | |
| ▲ | DaSHacka 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In this case, modifications that remove or limit "safety features" that aren't even a requirement now, and many cars on the road don't have? Not to mention, as others in the thread brought up, can invite issues of their own. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dgfitz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s so funny to me that people think just because a law is passed, that fixes problems. “This wasn’t illegal and now we made it illegal, we fixed the problem!” How’s that been working out? | | |
| ▲ | zimpenfish 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm guessing you haven't died from polluted drinking water, contaminated food, fake medicines, smog, unsafe vehicles, unsafe roads, dangerous household goods, lethal home wiring, shoddily constructed housing, or any of the other hundreds of things that laws have improved? | | |
| ▲ | dgfitz 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Goalposts moved. I’ll never drive a car that in any way takes control of the steering or brakes. Full stop. If I need to modify the car to disable that feature, I will. At least I’m honest about it. Pass all the laws in the name of good ideas for the children. If I disagree with it, I’m not going to obey it. I’m not unique in this. I’m fucking tired of being told “I’m smarter than you and this is actually in your best interest, trust me.” Did you know that child labor actually increased in India after laws that tried to eliminate child labor? Let’s keep patting ourselves on the back that we can feel good about passing laws though. | | |
| ▲ | zimpenfish 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I quote: "It’s so funny to me that people think just because a law is passed, that fixes problems." I gave you a whole bunch of problems that have been fixed by passing laws. > child labor actually increased in India after laws that tried to eliminate child labor I did not. Which law are we talking about? 1948, 1952, 1986 or 2009? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
