7 ms·
The acceleration you needed wasn't there the moment you needed it most, because your subscription expired or your car couldn't get online to check that it was s
by snvzz 4y ago
The acceleration you needed wasn't there the moment you needed it most, because your subscription expired or your car couldn't get online to check that it was still active.
And now you are dead.
Safety is now software, on a subscription model.
- bipson 4y agoNobody ever died because he did not have enough acceleration. That whole argument is as old and tired as it is wrong. Escaping from dangerous situations is not a thing. Speed got you in that situation in the first place.
- hellisothers 4y agoI was traveling and rented an underpowered hybrid ford something that defaults to Eco mode every time you turn it on. I was waiting to turn left in crosstraffic and when I saw my chance hit the gas to go and I assure you I almost died due to lack of acceleration.
- tester756 4y ago"Nobody ever"? Wouldn't such a thing be useful when overtaking?
- jamesliudotcc 4y agoThis is an SUV that can do 0 to 60 in 6.2. Those used to be sports car numbers not too long ago. 5.2 is ludicrous for anything without an electric motor. It is not as if this is a 90s Yugo. Some car magazine a while back did a side-by-side comparison of two Mercedes sedans, one with a V6 and the other with a V8. They were happier with the V6, because nobody can use the extra power given speed enforcement on highways. So do yourself a favor and just don't pay for it.
- WirelessGigabit 4y agoI disagree. I am in a bad situation. I know my car. I either brake or accelerate to get out of this pickle. I choose to accelerate, based on what I know that the car can do, as that seems to be the safest. And it doesn't react the way I expect. Now I'm dead.
- googlryas 4y agoIt seems highly unlikely. What maneuver are you pulling where you need to floor it and your 0-60 time comes into play? You see a boulder rolling down a hill toward the road a quarter mile away, and you say "I can beat it!"
- hansvm 4y agoSomething unexpected is moving into your lane (wreck from the other lane, semi driver falling asleep, moose, ...), and you need to apply some combination of braking, accelerating, and turning to avoid it. Less drastically but much more frequently, just when merging onto the freeway you'll typically choose to accelerate or brake based on what's most comfortable given the available traffic openings, and finding in hindsight that acceleration wasn't actually an option isn't going to make the road safer.
- googlryas 4y agoYou would only find that if you were literally flooring it to merge. That's not safe regardless.
- tacitusarc 4y agoHave you really never been in a situation where you need to accelerate out of the way of another driver braking the law? For example, driving through an intersection and suddenly you notice someone is running their red light on a collision course. You must either go forward or backward. Much more difficult to reverse than to accelerate.
- googlryas 4y agoI check intersections before proceeding through them , so no that hasn't happened in 250,000 miles of driving. And what is that, like 0.5 seconds to make a difference? How much further will the car be when it had this subscription vs not having the subscription?
- growt 4y agoI agree with the "speed is not the solution" point of view. But if you're used to your car behaving in a certain way (accelerating fast in this case) and then your subscription expires and suddenly, while overtaking someone, you realise that it's no longer behaving the same way. That could be dangerous.
- cjsawyer 4y agoMuscle memory is everything when driving
- comprev 4y agoDue to my car having good acceleration I spend less time on the opposite lane during overtaking. This is safer for those in my car, the vehicle/object I'm overtaking and the traffic from the other direction. It's a win-win-win all round.
- joosters 4y agoWhy is it safer? Are you saying that you would otherwise overtake another car in an unsafe way, perhaps when you haven't enough visibility to check if there is no oncoming traffic for the overtake time? That's on you. The decision is the same, in a fast car or a slow one.
- comprev 4y agoA faster car allows you to safely overtake more frequently than a slow one because it requires less time (distance) to complete the accelerate/overtake/return operation. Many drivers in slow cars think they can execute the same manoeuvre as the fast car in front of them and this is when accidents happen - often fatal too.
- joosters 4y agoSo bad driving causes crashes? Who would that thought? It's not that the faster car is safer then, it's just the fact that if you try to overtake without sufficient room, you will be taking a risk. No-one is disputing that a faster car allows you to overtake faster.
- everdrive 4y agoHonestly you should not be overtaking in the other lane at all. It's a large risk to you and the other drivers on the road, and all you get in return is a few seconds off your trip.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y agoThis assumes the driver in the front is a good driver. What if the driver is constantly breaking and accelerating? Or the driver is simply a big truck that cover the view
- losteric 4y agoMerging on to freeways? Turning in to traffic? Passing a slow car in fast traffic? I spent years driving a $500 shit box car. There are loads of situations where acceleration mitigates other people's mistakes. I lost that car getting rear ended - not my fault, but it could have been avoided with more power (saving myself weeks of neck pain).
- googlryas 4y agoSo you're driving in a manner that if your car gets a hiccough and underperforms, you're in extreme danger? That happens all the time with ICE cars...how are you not dead yet?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rad_gruchalski 4y agoIn a manual car you drop the gear.
- googlryas 4y agoYes, which you don't hit 100% of the time.
- rad_gruchalski 4y agoThe only car I ever had that problem in was a Porsche 964 Carrera RS track car.
- googlryas 4y agoYes but imagine you're in a stressful situation where your life is in danger because you didn't realize your subscription expired and your 0-60 is 6.1s instead of 5.1s. Are you hitting doenshifts 100% in those situations?
- rad_gruchalski 4y agoIf in doubt, flat out.
- speed_spread 4y agoOn a motorcycle, reaction speed is all you have to save your ass and accelerating away from danger is a totally valid strategy in many situations. A car may not be able to squeeze ahead as easily in a bind because of its size but having enough reserve power still makes some maneuvers safer (e.g. overtaking a slow vehicle).
- boardwaalk 4y agoThe “speed is safety” bit is probably a lot more obvious to motorcyclists but applies to everyone on the road, even if the situations are less likely. Imagine some road eager tries to pit maneuver you but you’re able to accelerate away and they miss. Or you’re not able, and you end up dead. I hope the people who designed/developed do not have clean consciouses.
- bandyaboot 4y agoTotally. What are they going to do next, put your banana dropper on a subscription? So next time some road rager fires a turtle shell at you it doesn’t harmlessly hit your bananas, and you end up dead.
- dahart 4y ago“Driving too fast for conditions or in excess of posted speed limit” is the largest related factor in fatal crashes in the US, according to the NHTSA, it ranks above alcohol (by nearly 2x!). https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813375 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... Do keep in mind that we’re talking about a subscription to go 0-60 MPH in 5.2 seconds vs 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. The non-subscribed acceleration of 0-60 in 6.2 seconds for this specific car is far faster than the majority of cars on the road can accelerate. Do also keep in mind that the non-subscription features of the car must pass all safety standards, therefore safety is clearly not on a subscription model. There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike these auto-maker attempts at rent seeking, so let’s not be hyperbolic about them, lest we undermine the stronger arguments.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y agoPeople who did not crash don't appear on statistic though (just making a point)
- tfehring 4y agoIt's definitely harder to count the time spent speeding when that speeding doesn't end in a crash, but the NHTSA still tries to do it [0]. About 19% of vehicle miles are driven at more than 10 mph above the speed limit on highways, somewhat fewer on city streets. [0] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/812485_national-traffic-speeds-survey-iii-2015.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/812485...
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y agoI'm talking about sudden acceleration to avoid danger, not constant speeding. Fast overtakes might rarely be registered because those are short lived.
- dahart 4y agoThat might seem like a logical point, but think about it a little more; if speeding is helping some people to not crash, then the point you’re effectively making is that speeding might actually make you even more than twice as likely to cause a fatal accident as a drunk driver, but sometimes helps enough that it evens out to be only twice as likely to cause a fatality. It’s not true that non-crashes aren’t represented here- the NHTSA statistics capture the rate of crashes in terms like crashes per vehicle miles traveled, which represents both the probability of crashing and the probability of not crashing (one minus the probability of crashing). The fact that speeding is a huge factor in many crashes and that it increases the chance of death does in fact demonstrate that it’s overall less safe to speed. Speed might anecdotally help some people in some situations, but the actual stats do prove that the net effect of speeding is greater risk.