(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   The NTSB wants cars to have mandatory collision avoidance systems, which will bankrupt automakers just like seat belts, airbags, and anti-lock brakes did

15 Nov 2012 11:09 AM   |   2423 clicks   |   Wall Street Journal
Add Comment
Showing 1-50 of 137 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
colinspooky    [TotalFark]  
..........mandatory collision avoidance system,..........

Didn't that used to be called a "driver" back in the old days ?

15 Nov 2012 03:23 AM
Reply
Elvis_Bogart    [TotalFark]  
The only piece of new equipment needed is a cellphone signal jammer in each car.

15 Nov 2012 04:55 AM
Reply
sithon    [TotalFark]  
that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.

15 Nov 2012 06:19 AM
Reply
FirstNationalBastard    [TotalFark]  

Elvis_Bogart: The only piece of new equipment needed is a cellphone signal jammer in each car.


Are you going to tie women's hands to the wheel so they don't apply make-up while doing 80 in the center lane?

15 Nov 2012 08:52 AM
Reply
Carth     

colinspooky: ..........mandatory collision avoidance system,..........

Didn't that used to be called a "driver" back in the old days ?


When were these good old days before car accidents? Back when we had horse and buggies?

15 Nov 2012 11:12 AM
Reply
Rapmaster2000     
"If we had this equipment, we could theoretically eliminate 60% of the highway accidents," board member Robert Sumwalt said. That is the share of highway accidents involving rear-end collisions, lane-change maneuvers and vehicles running off the road.

I have faith in my fellow Americans that we can re-up our level of distracted driving and reduce that number.

15 Nov 2012 11:14 AM
Reply
Explodo     
Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.

15 Nov 2012 11:14 AM
Reply
netcentric     
Wait...weren't automakers going bankrupt?

I thought we had to bail them out.....

15 Nov 2012 11:15 AM
Reply
This text is now purple     

FirstNationalBastard: Are you going to tie women's hands to the wheel so they don't apply make-up while doing 80 in the center lane on the shoulder?


15 Nov 2012 11:16 AM
Reply
Cold_Sassy     

Carth: colinspooky: ..........mandatory collision avoidance system,..........

Didn't that used to be called a "driver" back in the old days ?

When were these good old days before car accidents? Back when we had horse and buggies?


Ignoramus.

15 Nov 2012 11:16 AM
Reply
groppet     

Rapmaster2000: "If we had this equipment, we could theoretically eliminate 60% of the highway accidents," board member Robert Sumwalt said. That is the share of highway accidents involving rear-end collisions, lane-change maneuvers and vehicles running off the road.

I have faith in my fellow Americans that we can re-up our level of distracted driving and reduce that number.


And Im sure it will be the most reliable piece of equipment on the car with nary a recall. Coulda used one at the end of sept, stupid old man running a stop sign.

15 Nov 2012 11:17 AM
Reply
aevert     

Elvis_Bogart: The only piece of new equipment needed is a cellphone signal jammer in each car.


Which works great until you need to call 911 or AAA and your signal is jammed by passing cars.

15 Nov 2012 11:17 AM
Reply
bittermang     

sithon: that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.


Well. If you were going to crash the car. Maybe you need to have the wheel jerked away from you. If only for the sake of whatever or whoever you're about to hit.

Purists resist vehicle automation. I ask why we're not there already? Cell phone use. Tail gating. Road rage. Not using signals. Vehicular manslaughter. DUIs. I don't care if you're an expert driver who can ace the time trials at Laguna Seca. Back in reality, a great many people have proven themselves incapable of piloting a vehicle. You encounter them on the road every day, and some day one of them might kill you because they stubbornly insisted they could pilot a machine better than a computer.

I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.

15 Nov 2012 11:17 AM
Reply
spentshells     
This is going to need to be a very advanced system as avoiding 1 collision most times involves getting into another.

15 Nov 2012 11:19 AM
Reply
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  
It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.

15 Nov 2012 11:19 AM
Reply
thecpt     

This text is now purple: FirstNationalBastard: Are you going to tie women's hands to the wheel so they don't apply make-up while doing 80 in the center lane on the shoulder farking everywhere while on a cellphone?


15 Nov 2012 11:19 AM
Reply
JackieRabbit     
If it will also stream porn when it isn't helping me avoid a collision, I'm okay with this.

15 Nov 2012 11:19 AM
Reply
TofuTheAlmighty     

Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.


Moving a 2-ton steel box requires just a little more energy than electrifying a few circuit boards.

15 Nov 2012 11:20 AM
Reply
Carth     

bittermang: sithon: that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.

Well. If you were going to crash the car. Maybe you need to have the wheel jerked away from you. If only for the sake of whatever or whoever you're about to hit.

Purists resist vehicle automation. I ask why we're not there already? Cell phone use. Tail gating. Road rage. Not using signals. Vehicular manslaughter. DUIs. I don't care if you're an expert driver who can ace the time trials at Laguna Seca. Back in reality, a great many people have proven themselves incapable of piloting a vehicle. You encounter them on the road every day, and some day one of them might kill you because they stubbornly insisted they could pilot a machine better than a computer.

I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.


This. We have around 30,000 deaths a year due to auto accidents. If that many Americans died in a year due to a terrorist attack we'd be spending billions to stop it from ever happening again.

15 Nov 2012 11:21 AM
Reply
iheartscotch    [TotalFark]  
Maybe we should just make an auto pilot system for cars.

/ it would potentially reduce accidents by 1,000,000%

15 Nov 2012 11:21 AM
Reply
The Irresponsible Captain    [TotalFark]  
I'm all for sensors in the front of the car that keep people from rear-ending, auto-adjust cruise control, and back off the accelerator when a car gets too close for the speed it's going.

It would make everyone's commute more pleasant, excepting that guy who has to be three inches of everyone's bumper.

Vibrating the seat or wheel when you try to turn into another car or drift off the road is nice as well.

Face it, computers are just better drivers than people. Google's car has proven it, and now the only technical problem is shrinking it. It's no longer a matter of if, but when.

15 Nov 2012 11:22 AM
Reply
jaybeezey     

netcentric: Wait...weren't automakers going bankrupt?

I thought we had to bail them out.....


Didn't you hear? GM is alive in the hands of the unions and in debt to US tax payers and Chrysler paid back their gov't bailout with a gov't grant.

But we got Bin Laden!

15 Nov 2012 11:24 AM
Reply
Carth     

dittybopper: It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.


Except some cars already have them and they do work. They make you less likely to get into a car accident and less likely to be injured in those that do happen.

15 Nov 2012 11:25 AM
Reply
FirstNationalBastard    [TotalFark]  

Carth: bittermang: sithon: that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.

Well. If you were going to crash the car. Maybe you need to have the wheel jerked away from you. If only for the sake of whatever or whoever you're about to hit.

Purists resist vehicle automation. I ask why we're not there already? Cell phone use. Tail gating. Road rage. Not using signals. Vehicular manslaughter. DUIs. I don't care if you're an expert driver who can ace the time trials at Laguna Seca. Back in reality, a great many people have proven themselves incapable of piloting a vehicle. You encounter them on the road every day, and some day one of them might kill you because they stubbornly insisted they could pilot a machine better than a computer.

I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.

This. We have around 30,000 deaths a year due to auto accidents. If that many Americans died in a year due to a terrorist attack we'd be spending billions to stop it from ever happening again.


If only a tenth of that number died in a terrorist attack, we'd definitely spend billions and declare a war on automobile accidents.

15 Nov 2012 11:25 AM
Reply
jaybeezey     
I was hoping that new car prices were going to jump by $5k!

15 Nov 2012 11:26 AM
Reply
FirstNationalBastard    [TotalFark]  

Carth: dittybopper: It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.

Except some cars already have them and they do work. They make you less likely to get into a car accident and less likely to be injured in those that do happen.


Well, see, the problem is I can have this system, and I can avoid colliding with something in front of me, but the jerkoff behind me who has been riding my ass for the last 20 miles might not have the system installed, so I'm still farked.

15 Nov 2012 11:26 AM
Reply
JackieRabbit     

iheartscotch: Maybe we should just make an auto pilot system for cars.

/ it would potentially reduce accidents by 1,000,000%


It has already happened and approved for trial use by California.

15 Nov 2012 11:27 AM
Reply
DanielM     
I drive a semi that already has one and its benefits far outweigh the annoyances. Auto adjusting cruise and auto braking. Plus lane warning with a loud buzzer if you drift out of your lane without a turn signal on. It's saved me plenty of grief. I am all for every vehicle being required to have them!

15 Nov 2012 11:29 AM
Reply
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  

bittermang: sithon: that sounds bad . like it suddenly jerks the wheel out of your hands.

Well. If you were going to crash the car. Maybe you need to have the wheel jerked away from you. If only for the sake of whatever or whoever you're about to hit.


Purists resist vehicle automation. I ask why we're not there already? Cell phone use. Tail gating. Road rage. Not using signals. Vehicular manslaughter. DUIs. I don't care if you're an expert driver who can ace the time trials at Laguna Seca. Back in reality, a great many people have proven themselves incapable of piloting a vehicle. You encounter them on the road every day, and some day one of them might kill you because they stubbornly insisted they could pilot a machine better than a computer.

I understand not implicitly trusting a computer to do everything. See: people who receive multiple thousand dollar electric bills, Y2K, that time when 2 Pac's hologram became sentient and the company had to go out of business to cover it up. However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.

As someone who writes software for a living, and has done so for a couple decades now, that is a really, really, *REALLY* bad idea. It's one thing for an airplane in a relatively open and unobstructed sky to run on autopilot, while being monitored by a seasoned professional.

It's quite another for a distracted housewife to be sitting in a car and yelling at the kids while updating social media on her customized iNail finger-tip device.

If you spend the time and effort to make the software reliable enough to actually use it, meaning testing at all levels and integration validation, etc., testing it by

15 Nov 2012 11:29 AM
Reply
Wile_E_Canuck     
In an emergency situation, the absolute last thing I want is the vehicle telling me it knows better than I do how to react.

The vehicles with steering that reacts differently depending on conditions is another horrible idea. Turning the steering wheel should give you the same reaction on your wheels every time, not more or less depending on speed or whether the system thinks it's icy.

15 Nov 2012 11:30 AM
Reply
Carth     

FirstNationalBastard: Carth: dittybopper: It will add cost, and it won't make a difference. See: Risk Homeostasis.

Except some cars already have them and they do work. They make you less likely to get into a car accident and less likely to be injured in those that do happen.

Well, see, the problem is I can have this system, and I can avoid colliding with something in front of me, but the jerkoff behind me who has been riding my ass for the last 20 miles might not have the system installed, so I'm still farked.


I agree. That is the reason they should be mandated to make sure everyone has them. The fact that people who are currently using them, on roads where not everyone else has one, and already get in fewer accidents makes me think you won't be any more at risk than you currently are during the transition.

15 Nov 2012 11:30 AM
Reply
Lost Thought 00     

Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.


No, it just means you need to cut back on that 250hp grocery getter.

15 Nov 2012 11:31 AM
Reply
johnphantom     

FirstNationalBastard: Are you going to tie women's hands to the wheel so they don't apply make-up while doing 80 in the center lane?


Shhh, you'll piss off the farkettes.

15 Nov 2012 11:32 AM
Reply
bmwericus     
News Flash: Modern humans unable to cope with driving anylonger due to more important things to do while behind the wheel. Technology to compensate again.

Perhaps this IS a good idea, but from my perspective it's just another control: "Welcome to Jhonny Cab! Please state your Destination and insert your permission card!"

I've got somewhere around a half million miles behind the wheel. Last time I hit another car with mine was 1979...

/Why no, I rarely make phone calls while driving

15 Nov 2012 11:34 AM
Reply
BuckTurgidson     
www.ionroad.com

15 Nov 2012 11:34 AM
Reply
JackieRabbit     

Wile_E_Canuck: In an emergency situation, the absolute last thing I want is the vehicle telling me it knows better than I do how to react.

The vehicles with steering that reacts differently depending on conditions is another horrible idea. Turning the steering wheel should give you the same reaction on your wheels every time, not more or less depending on speed or whether the system thinks it's icy.


The purpose of collision avoidance systems is to prevent emergency situations from happening, not tell you what do to in an emergency. If a system could tell you that there is not enough room to change lanes, that you are drifting off the road, or that you are in danger of rear-ending the car in front of you, I think you'd find this useful. Most of the highway accidents (60% according to the NTSB) are due to these three mistakes and all of them are due to a lack of effective attention. We all get distracted sometimes when we drive and systems such as this could be a big help. I think the cost of such systems would be offset by lower auto insurance rates.

15 Nov 2012 11:35 AM
Reply
inner ted     
driving is going to get very boring in the future

i.ytimg.com

15 Nov 2012 11:35 AM
Reply
t3knomanser     

bittermang: However. People have already shown how they handle vehicles, and it's poorly. Let's give the computers a spin.


Humans do not tend to consider themselves part of the systems which they operate. When human error occurs, it is counted in a separate category from system error. Hence, a human operated vehicle has very little system error, since only a mechanical failure that directly precipitates an accident is system error.

By removing human error and replacing it with automated driving, the number of system errors will increase.

But that's a bad way of counting system errors. Humans are part of the system, and not counting human errors as system errors is wrong.

15 Nov 2012 11:35 AM
Reply
thecpt     
Also, if this doesn't add to car initial cost the manufacturers will up the price tag anyways.

Maybe lower fuel costs and significantly lower insurance costs though. Also longer economic service life for vehicles which in itself saves money.

15 Nov 2012 11:36 AM
Reply
Clemkadidlefark     
Until you finally realize this has nothing to do with you, and has to do entirely with the safety of the insurance industry's bottom line

No car collisions

Yet your rates will go up

How dat happen, Grammy?

15 Nov 2012 11:37 AM
Reply
iheartscotch    [TotalFark]  

JackieRabbit: iheartscotch: Maybe we should just make an auto pilot system for cars.

/ it would potentially reduce accidents by 1,000,000%

It has already happened and approved for trial use by California.


My sarcasm generator must be on the fritz.

The majority of people won't ever turn over complete control of a car to a computer. What happens if the manufacturer pushes an update when I'm asleep, traveling 90 mph?

15 Nov 2012 11:38 AM
Reply
vpb    [TotalFark]  

inner ted: driving is going to get very boring in the future

[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]


Good. Computers can't suck at driving as much as people do. Besides, what do you think is going to happen when people get wearable displays and can watch You tube while driving?

15 Nov 2012 11:38 AM
Reply
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  

TofuTheAlmighty: Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.

Moving a 2-ton steel box requires just a little more energy than electrifying a few circuit boards.


In aggregate, if it only reduces fuel economy by 0.01%, it will still cost ((208million*12,000milespervehicle)/25 mpg) * $3.75 per gallon * 0.01% = $37.44 million dollars a year in extra gas costs, and it will add ((208million*12,000milespervehicle)/25 mpg) * 19.4lbs * 0.01% = 193,7 million pounds of extra CO2 into the air per year, contributing to global warming.

Why do you hate the planet, and average working stiffs just trying to get to their job?

15 Nov 2012 11:38 AM
Reply
johnphantom     

t3knomanser: But that's a bad way of counting system errors. Humans are part of the system, and not counting human errors as system errors is wrong.


Damn, I love the PEBKAC defense.

15 Nov 2012 11:40 AM
Reply
crabsno termites     
So if I'm involved in a collision, does Bill Gates get the ticket?

15 Nov 2012 11:42 AM
Reply
Click Click D'oh     
My poor Jeep would be illegal to manufacture these days... It's just too damn deadly.

... Although it hasn't had a single mishap in more than 200K miles.

15 Nov 2012 11:43 AM
Reply
SDRR     
Crazy talk. I prefer my car only does what I tell it to. Thankyouverymuch.

15 Nov 2012 11:44 AM
Reply
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  

Lost Thought 00: Explodo: Adding more safety equipment is at odds with adding more fuel economy.

No, it just means you need to cut back on that 250hp grocery getter.


No: Doesn't matter if the vehicle is a full-sized Dodge EarthFarker, or HappyPlanet Mini-Cart. Adding any additional equipment to either will reduce the fuel economy of both vehicles by a small, but measurable amount. The effect will be more noticeable in the smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle, however, for a piece of safety equipment that weighs X and consumes Y amount of power.

15 Nov 2012 11:44 AM
Reply
iron_city_ap     
"If we had this equipment, we could theoretically eliminate 60% of the highway accidents,"

If we eliminated cars, we could theoretically eliminate 100% of the highway accidents. Call me back when you have a realistic number.

Also, 'what the hell is it doing now' gets said more often than you think regarding the auto pilot in airplanes. Cars would be MUCH MUCH worse.

15 Nov 2012 11:44 AM
Reply
Walker    [TotalFark]  
Done in two.

15 Nov 2012 11:45 AM
Reply
Showing 1-50 of 137 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined