3 ms·
Not mine, because I'm not willing to be part of the cohort of people who find out how bad of a problem insecure tech in connected cars can be for us. We are goi
by smolder 5y ago
Not mine, because I'm not willing to be part of the cohort of people who find out how bad of a problem insecure tech in connected cars can be for us. We are going to make mistakes before people learn, and I'll be driving an older unconnected car.
- chrisseaton 5y agoThe biggest threat to you in your car is a crash, and driving an older car from an era with lower crash standards is a far bigger risk than connectivity.
- smolder 5y agoThat's fine, I know how to drive and maintain vehicles. Crash safety has been pretty great since the 00s, especially if you shop for it.
- kylegordon 5y ago> I know how to drive and maintain vehicles Do others? You are but one in the massive herd Disclaimer: My daily is from 1981
- chrisseaton 5y ago> I know how to drive Everyone thinks that they 'know how to drive'. Even if you do, the point is other people may not know how to drive and may crash into you.
- skeeks 5y agoYou're not the only one driving on the streets and often, other drivers are the greater danger.
- avereveard 5y agoabout half the crashes are single vehicle accidents, and pileup drive the statistic for multicrash vehicle count, it's quite less likely being collected by a bad driver than flat stat would imply.
- watwut 5y agoThat stats you wrote don't disprove the above statement. You still have half crashes being multi vehicle accident, which is quite a lot. The crash event being pileup does not changes anything.
- avereveard 5y agomulticar crash happens 1/cars times, duh, they account for the same fatalities but you are far less likely to be in one, because they are tied to exceptional events (i.e. snow) and non uniform across the population.
- watwut 5y agoSnow is not exceptional event. Nor is rain. And while multi car crashes happen less often, they involve more cars, so if don't affect you chance to not get into one.
- maccard 5y agoGood thing you're the only person driving on the road isn't it? I've been driving for almost 15 years, and never had an accident, but in that time there are many occasions where someone else on the road has done something _incredibly_ stupid. All it would have taken in any of those scenarios is for me to be opening a window/changing the radio station/looking in the rear view mirror and I'd have hit them.
- twobitshifter 5y agoThe new crash safety features that actually prevent crashes are a step up from what was offered in the 00s.
- StavrosK 5y agoThe first thing we learned in university was "more code = more crashes".
- chrisseaton 5y agoI mean a physical crash, not a code crash. Car physical crash safety standards have been shooting up for the last 20 years or so. A car from 10 years ago isn't built to withstand the same crashes - you can see this in how the builds have changed.
- StavrosK 5y agoI know, that was the joke :(
- avereveard 5y agoonce you correct for dui, speeding, driving tired and filter by vehicle types driving a car is pretty safe, that is, if one is not in the problem cohort one can have a pretty low risk of crashing.
- chrisseaton 5y agoNumber of people killed on the roads every year due to cyber attack: 0 Number of people killed on the roads every year due to normal crashes: 1,350,000 If you're optimising to reduce risk of the former at the significant expense of increasing risk of the latter... I think you're a fool.
- Bancakes 5y agoNumber of people killed on the roads every year due to cyber attack: 0 Number of cars that should have complex, proprietary, hackable software: 0 It's a regress
- chopin 5y ago> Number of people killed on the roads every year due to cyber attack: 0 How do you know this? The beauty of a cyber attack is that it can be made elusive. And the number of people killed on the roads by failing software is certainly not 0.
- chrisseaton 5y agoI think it's a super-reasonable guess that it's approximately zero. Maybe it's a thousand if you're super imaginative? I think you'd really struggle to make a serious argument that it was a bigger risk.
- avereveard 5y agoFirst of all, that wasn't my claim. Second, the amount of circulating car that might be a vector for a cyberattack is so small that the 0 in the statistic could very well fall in the range of expected deaths when corrected for other factors. I.e. if there's one vulnerable car every million 0 is what you'd expect deaths to be, not an astounding result.
- Bancakes 5y agoDo you honestly believe Tesla's safety hype? All modern cars are very safe. If you crash head-on with a Ford explorer, then nothing will save you.
- chrisseaton 5y ago> Do you honestly believe Tesla's safety hype? Not sure where anyone mentioned anything to do with Tesla? > All modern cars are very safe. Well yeah that was my point - cars that aren't as modern aren't as safe. They increase crash standards at places like NCAP every few years.
- lifeisstillgood 5y agoThis feels a bit like "The market can remain irrational longer than you can keep repairing your beat up 2004 Chrysler". But I understand the sentiment.
- hrktb 5y agoCar related issues are never “someone else” ’s problem though. Cars getting hacked when running around you won’t be a risk you can ignore. Your town’s critical services car systems getting compromised won’t be something you turn a blind eye to either. As usual, apart from engaging in local committees there is little we can do from the outside, but we’ll definitely be the ones paying the price at the end.
- FridayoLeary 5y agoI can think of quite a few ungenerous things to write. But i myself don't like newer models, but they are more economical.