4 ms·

I'm firmly on this side. The single most dangerous part of the car is the driver. You can do basically the exact same damage with a standard car at highways s

I'm firmly on this side. The single most dangerous part of the car is the driver. You can do basically the exact same damage with a standard car at highways speeds using nothing but the steering wheel and accelerator. And it happens all the time. Functionally - I don't see much difference between a misbehaving control module and a driver having a stroke. You can also solve both problems with a single stroke by making public transportation effective and preferable in places where density is likely to make this a problem (cities).

georgyo 4y ago
I'm incline to agree, but the driver is the most dangerous because we _assume_ that the when the driver pushes the gas or the breaks they will work. In the age of the accelerator and break going to software systems instead of mechanical systems, it is 100% possible to crash that software and all the sudden you cannot break.
kmlx 4y ago
> The single most dangerous part of the car is the driver. this is only because we have incredibly high safety standards when it comes to cars.
nkrisc 4y ago
> Functionally - I don't see much difference between a misbehaving control module and a driver having a stroke. There’s a huge difference: one can be reasonably prevented. Unfortunately we can’t reliably prevent people from having strokes.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  And you're also going to require this for all other mishaps on the road that we can reasonably prevent? Legally binding regulations for auto maintenance? Legal stops on the road for tire wear checks? Legal scrapping of cars that don't pass certain safety standards? Legal checks for dementia and vision for the elderly? Basically - why is this one the one that you draw the line at? What makes it special? Most folks can agree that neither the driver nor the public want a vehicle with a malfunctioning control module. It's not like there are misaligned interests here. Tuning should be expected to work just as well and any other after-market modification. Are you concerned that it provides more torque, or more speed? Because the same thing is true of just buying a different car... Should a sports car be illegal because it has more torque? Should we ban red cars because - statistically - they're more likely to be involved in an accident? Should no one be allowed to drive a subcompact because crash mortalities are nearly double those of the average vehicle? Why? Why does this require regulation that you're proposing? What warrants the loss of control for the individual, in a case where it's pretty clear interests are aligned, and there are dozens of other nearly identical risks?
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >Unfortunately we can’t reliably prevent people from having strokes Nonsense, we can implement draconian licensing laws and Orwellian medical record sharing laws to keep the at risk off the roads. The peasants can have all the strokes they want, just not on the roads. (The above is satire but it's proximity to viewpoints that aren't satire should make people uncomfortable.)
  - dandellion 4y ago
    Or require redundant driving controls and a backup driver always present, if the main driver has a stroke the co-pilot takes over and drives. Where there's a will there's a way. Or take it to the limit and make driving so inconvenient that nobody drives, thereby solving the problem once and for all.
  - nkrisc 4y ago
    The cool thing is we can choose where to arbitrarily draw lines between acceptable and not acceptable. I’d say we can choose to place that line somewhere between “regulating modifications to cars” and “draconian health examinations for licensing”. In your satirical scenario the methods needed in order to prevent strokes while driving are far less reasonable than the methods needed to regulate modifications to critical systems of cars, from feasibility of implementation to the effects on personal privacy and liberty. Therefore I think we can pretty easily distinguish the two and they are not really that similar.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      The point I was trying to highlight which predictably went over some heads is that just because you can prevent 99.99% of something doesn't mean that would not be an absolutely asinine endeavor with little payoff. Medical events, mechanical failures, software failures, they're all in the long tail of "rare causes of accidents". The fat part of the curve is made up of various flavors of willful dumb driver behavior. It is pure foley to direct more resources at those problems than the bare minimum needed to look like you're "doing something" so that the people who don't understand how likely these events are are placated. The bulk of resources spent toward safety should be allocated toward reducing dumb things drivers do.
constantcrying 4y ago
> Functionally - I don't see much difference between a misbehaving control module and a driver having a stroke. We have total control over not installing aftermarket safety critical software, which may or may not allow a driver to break.

georgyo 4y ago

I'm incline to agree, but the driver is the most dangerous because we _assume_ that the when the driver pushes the gas or the breaks they will work. In the age of the accelerator and break going to software systems instead of mechanical systems, it is 100% possible to crash that software and all the sudden you cannot break.

kmlx 4y ago

> The single most dangerous part of the car is the driver. this is only because we have incredibly high safety standards when it comes to cars.

nkrisc 4y ago

> Functionally - I don't see much difference between a misbehaving control module and a driver having a stroke. There’s a huge difference: one can be reasonably prevented. Unfortunately we can’t reliably prevent people from having strokes.

horsawlarway 4y ago
And you're also going to require this for all other mishaps on the road that we can reasonably prevent? Legally binding regulations for auto maintenance? Legal stops on the road for tire wear checks? Legal scrapping of cars that don't pass certain safety standards? Legal checks for dementia and vision for the elderly? Basically - why is this one the one that you draw the line at? What makes it special? Most folks can agree that neither the driver nor the public want a vehicle with a malfunctioning control module. It's not like there are misaligned interests here. Tuning should be expected to work just as well and any other after-market modification. Are you concerned that it provides more torque, or more speed? Because the same thing is true of just buying a different car... Should a sports car be illegal because it has more torque? Should we ban red cars because - statistically - they're more likely to be involved in an accident? Should no one be allowed to drive a subcompact because crash mortalities are nearly double those of the average vehicle? Why? Why does this require regulation that you're proposing? What warrants the loss of control for the individual, in a case where it's pretty clear interests are aligned, and there are dozens of other nearly identical risks?
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>Unfortunately we can’t reliably prevent people from having strokes Nonsense, we can implement draconian licensing laws and Orwellian medical record sharing laws to keep the at risk off the roads. The peasants can have all the strokes they want, just not on the roads. (The above is satire but it's proximity to viewpoints that aren't satire should make people uncomfortable.)
- dandellion 4y ago
  Or require redundant driving controls and a backup driver always present, if the main driver has a stroke the co-pilot takes over and drives. Where there's a will there's a way. Or take it to the limit and make driving so inconvenient that nobody drives, thereby solving the problem once and for all.
- nkrisc 4y ago
  The cool thing is we can choose where to arbitrarily draw lines between acceptable and not acceptable. I’d say we can choose to place that line somewhere between “regulating modifications to cars” and “draconian health examinations for licensing”. In your satirical scenario the methods needed in order to prevent strokes while driving are far less reasonable than the methods needed to regulate modifications to critical systems of cars, from feasibility of implementation to the effects on personal privacy and liberty. Therefore I think we can pretty easily distinguish the two and they are not really that similar.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    The point I was trying to highlight which predictably went over some heads is that just because you can prevent 99.99% of something doesn't mean that would not be an absolutely asinine endeavor with little payoff. Medical events, mechanical failures, software failures, they're all in the long tail of "rare causes of accidents". The fat part of the curve is made up of various flavors of willful dumb driver behavior. It is pure foley to direct more resources at those problems than the bare minimum needed to look like you're "doing something" so that the people who don't understand how likely these events are are placated. The bulk of resources spent toward safety should be allocated toward reducing dumb things drivers do.

constantcrying 4y ago

> Functionally - I don't see much difference between a misbehaving control module and a driver having a stroke. We have total control over not installing aftermarket safety critical software, which may or may not allow a driver to break.