5 ms·
But they would fail emissions regulations without engine management and safety regulations without a reversing screen or airbags.
by aembleton 5y ago
But they would fail emissions regulations without engine management and safety regulations without a reversing screen or airbags.
- Scroedingershat 5y agoMake them electric (electric cars predate integrated circuits and arguably reliable ICE cars), put a mirror and a fresnel lens on the back, regulate that the driver has to be able to see the average 2 year old standing anywhere behind the car even with no mirror, and put in a 5pt harness with a quick release on one shoulder for reversing (which is better than all but the last couple of generations of airbag). There is no need for SUVs or even anything as big as a 'subcompact' to exist for private travel in cities, microcars from the 70s are better in every way except for compensating for tiny penises and scaring mothers into making the roads more dangerous via a prisoner's dilemma.
- smitty1e 5y agoPerhaps those regulations bear revision.
- FDSGSG 5y agoThey are actively being revised in the right direction (which involves more chips). It would be idiotic to worry about EMPs over emissions and crash safety.
- smitty1e 5y agoVery arguably idiotic, until the EMP occurs. Maybe better engineering captures the emissions and crash concerns in simpler, sturdier designs.
- FDSGSG 5y ago>Maybe better engineering captures the emissions and crash concerns in simpler, sturdier designs. This is very unlikely, given that everything points towards sturdier designs being less safe. Emissions can not be reasonably solved without chips, there really isn't any feasible alternative.
- Scroedingershat 5y agoThe arms race of complexity, size and regulatory lockin is the idiotic part when making them smaller, lighter and redesigning roads for 20mph solves this problem and many much worse ones.