4 ms·

Multi-ton vehicles capable of moving at highway speeds are dangerous and kill roughly a hundred people a day in the US[1]. So whether these changes are driven b

Multi-ton vehicles capable of moving at highway speeds are dangerous and kill roughly a hundred people a day in the US[1]. So whether these changes are driven by regulatory capture or not it makes perfect sense to tightly regulate automobiles. Personally I think consumers should be free to decide things like seatbelt and airbag use but if they drive on public roadways they should not be allowed to make cost/benefit tradeoffs that decrease the safety of those around them. > small, cheap, runabout electric vehicles could become very popular Agreed that's a promising area. It's possible that the increasing regulatory burden on cars may drive an increase in low-speed vehicles such as neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV) for use cases that do not require more than 25mph/40kph.[2] Since they are exempt from the vast majority of new automobile regulations that makes them comparatively much simpler and more affordable. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7126a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7126a1.htm [2] I am not claiming this works for every suburban commute, just that there exists a nontrivial number of car trips in cities and towns that would be feasible in a NEV.

pdonis 3y ago
> it makes perfect sense to tightly regulate automobiles Not the way we do it, it doesn't. What it does make sense to do is put the liability for harm where it belongs: on those who actually cause harm. But the vast majority of our automobile regulations--I include traffic laws in this category--do not do that. The regulation proposed here is an example.
- taeric 3y ago
  Nonsense. Better than worrying about liability of the harm that happens, is reducing the amount of harm that happens. To argue otherwise is silly.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    Regulations that restrict people who have not caused actual harm do not, in general, reduce the amount of harm that happens. But they do work great as revenue sources for local governments (speeding laws are the most common example but not the only one), not to mention as excuses for manufacturers to charge higher prices and squeeze out more profit from consumers. They also reduce general respect for laws and regulations among the public: people start to view driving, for example, as a game to avoid being caught doing things that are technically illegal but which the vast majority of people do anyway (such as exceeding posted speed limits). Fostering that kind of mentality among the public arguably increases the amount of harm that happens. Furthermore, government institutions, particularly in the post-COVID era, simply lack credibility when they make claims about some government mandate reducing harm. In this case, as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, NHTSA's claims about harm reduction assume that these systems will always operate perfectly and will never cause any harm, only prevent it. Such an assumption is not credible. In short, I do not share your faith in the ability of government regulators to actually reduce harm, on net. More generally, I do not share your faith in the ability of governments to actually act in the interest of all the people, instead of benefiting the governments themselves and particular special interests.
    - taeric 3y ago
      I disagree. Especially for institutions that have as much easy to look at data as this. Total wrecks is easy to track. And if it is going down, regulation to help is working. Paranoia on overreach is fine. Good, even. That is best approached by auditing and running the stats. Constantly. But to claim that this is a meaningful restriction feels wrong on many levels. That said, if you are going to assert some of these claims, on what evidence? I'm restricted such that I have to wear seatbelts. I can't buy a new car without rear view camera. I can't buy a new car without antilock brakes. Headlights. Brake lights. I could go for a long time on this list. Are you claiming none of those make driving safer?
      - pdonis 3y ago
        > to claim that this is a meaningful restriction feels wrong on many levels. You must be joking. Requiring me to have a technology in my car that can apply the brakes without any input from me and without warning? That is most definitely a meaningful restriction. You're forcing me to trust the government's estimate of the relative risk vs. benefit. To be blunt, the government sucks compared to me at estimating my relative risk and benefit. Plus, government institutions have repeatedly shown that they will lie to me about such things to serve political ends. So no, not buying it. > I'm restricted such that I have to wear seatbelts. I can't buy a new car without rear view camera. I can't buy a new car without antilock brakes. Headlights. Brake lights. I could go for a long time on this list. Are you claiming none of those make driving safer? The question is not whether these things make driving safer as compared to not having them. The question is whether the government regulations we have, which include requiring these things but also include lots of other regulations that have far worse justifications (if they even have justifications at all and aren't just blatant attempts to extort the public, such as speed traps), are a better system, on net, than a system in which such things were a matter of voluntary choice, but we forced people to bear the consequences of their bad choices. Oh, you weren't wearing a seat belt and you got in an accident? Sorry, your insurance company will not cover the medical costs due to injuries you suffered that the seat belt would have prevented (or you have a much higher deductible in such a case). Oh, you hit something while backing up and you didn't put a rear view camera in your car? Same sort of answer from your insurance company. Oh, you hit something because you didn't have anti-lock brakes and so you couldn't steer to avoid the collision? Same answer. In other words, if it is in fact true that these various technologies reduce the risk of accidents, then people who know they will have to take the consequences if they cause an accident will use these technologies to reduce that risk. But in our present regime, our society appears to be violently allergic to such things. The very existence of no fault auto insurance, for example, indicates that we don't like the idea of having to take the consequences of bad choices--but the result is that everyone pays more for auto insurance (IIRC, average rates in no fault states are about twice what they are in states that don't have no fault). We would all be better off if we abandoned the idea that government regulation can magically protect people from bad consequences. We would also all be better off if we abandoned the idea that we can somehow magically have a government that only makes good regulations, and accepted the inconvenient truth that government regulations come as a package, which even if it contains some good regulations contains many more bad ones, and all things considered is a net cost to us all, not a net gain. We need to stop depending on the nanny state to protect us and be responsible adults who are capable of judging risks and acting accordingly.
akira2501 3y ago
The majority of people killed in crashes are impaired by alcohol or drugs or both. 1/6 of all fatalities are pedestrians, and another 1/6 are motorcycles, despite only being 1/10 of all registered vehicles. There are tons of modes in this data. Assessing all crash fatalities as some sort of "general" problem you can target misses this fact. The single greatest thing you could do to reduce fatalities is to eliminate drunk and impaired driving.
- drivebycomment 3y ago
  This comment is irrelevant to the discussion of the AEB, since, AEB doesn't prevent anyone else from working on eliminating drunk and impaired driving. If anything, AEB would help mitigate some of the impact from the drunk and impaired driving.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    > This comment is irrelevant to the discussion of the AEB, This discussion is about _mandating_ AEB, not it's mere existence or implementation, and of the overall value of that proposition; which, I am suggesting is low relative to all other problems and efforts spent mandating this would be better spent elsewhere. > If anything, AEB would help mitigate some of the impact from the drunk and impaired driving. Are these systems tested for this use case? I'd like to see that. Otherwise, this is a guess, and a bad one.
- asoneth 3y ago
  Agreed that eliminating drunk and impaired driving is important. (For example, if there was a well-tested and reliable technology that could reduce drunk and impaired driving, I would be in favor of mandating it in new cars.) But this is not mutually exclusive. For one thing, we can do two things at once. For another, automobile fatalities typically have multiple contributing causes. If we had stronger safety regulations around vehicle height, stopping distance, windshield visibility, etc then some number of the crashes involving alcohol or drug use might have been injuries or close calls instead of fatalities.
eep_social 3y ago
> make cost/benefit tradeoffs that decrease the safety of those around them And yet we see that truck and suv purchases are through the roof with buyers regularly expressing the sentiment that they would rather be in a large vehicle to keep themselves and the other occupants safe. Generally the other side, which is fuck the pedestrians, cyclists, or other drivers who cannot afford to drive a full sized truck to starbucks, is left unsaid.
- asoneth 3y ago
  > buyers regularly expressing the sentiment that they would rather be in a large vehicle to keep themselves and the other occupants safe Yes. This is precisely why this sort of decision cannot be left to individual consumers -- the end result is an arms race of ever-larger vehicles and dramatic increases in fatalities for the rest of us.

pdonis 3y ago

> it makes perfect sense to tightly regulate automobiles Not the way we do it, it doesn't. What it does make sense to do is put the liability for harm where it belongs: on those who actually cause harm. But the vast majority of our automobile regulations--I include traffic laws in this category--do not do that. The regulation proposed here is an example.

taeric 3y ago
Nonsense. Better than worrying about liability of the harm that happens, is reducing the amount of harm that happens. To argue otherwise is silly.
- pdonis 3y ago
  Regulations that restrict people who have not caused actual harm do not, in general, reduce the amount of harm that happens. But they do work great as revenue sources for local governments (speeding laws are the most common example but not the only one), not to mention as excuses for manufacturers to charge higher prices and squeeze out more profit from consumers. They also reduce general respect for laws and regulations among the public: people start to view driving, for example, as a game to avoid being caught doing things that are technically illegal but which the vast majority of people do anyway (such as exceeding posted speed limits). Fostering that kind of mentality among the public arguably increases the amount of harm that happens. Furthermore, government institutions, particularly in the post-COVID era, simply lack credibility when they make claims about some government mandate reducing harm. In this case, as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, NHTSA's claims about harm reduction assume that these systems will always operate perfectly and will never cause any harm, only prevent it. Such an assumption is not credible. In short, I do not share your faith in the ability of government regulators to actually reduce harm, on net. More generally, I do not share your faith in the ability of governments to actually act in the interest of all the people, instead of benefiting the governments themselves and particular special interests.
  - taeric 3y ago
    I disagree. Especially for institutions that have as much easy to look at data as this. Total wrecks is easy to track. And if it is going down, regulation to help is working. Paranoia on overreach is fine. Good, even. That is best approached by auditing and running the stats. Constantly. But to claim that this is a meaningful restriction feels wrong on many levels. That said, if you are going to assert some of these claims, on what evidence? I'm restricted such that I have to wear seatbelts. I can't buy a new car without rear view camera. I can't buy a new car without antilock brakes. Headlights. Brake lights. I could go for a long time on this list. Are you claiming none of those make driving safer?
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > to claim that this is a meaningful restriction feels wrong on many levels. You must be joking. Requiring me to have a technology in my car that can apply the brakes without any input from me and without warning? That is most definitely a meaningful restriction. You're forcing me to trust the government's estimate of the relative risk vs. benefit. To be blunt, the government sucks compared to me at estimating my relative risk and benefit. Plus, government institutions have repeatedly shown that they will lie to me about such things to serve political ends. So no, not buying it. > I'm restricted such that I have to wear seatbelts. I can't buy a new car without rear view camera. I can't buy a new car without antilock brakes. Headlights. Brake lights. I could go for a long time on this list. Are you claiming none of those make driving safer? The question is not whether these things make driving safer as compared to not having them. The question is whether the government regulations we have, which include requiring these things but also include lots of other regulations that have far worse justifications (if they even have justifications at all and aren't just blatant attempts to extort the public, such as speed traps), are a better system, on net, than a system in which such things were a matter of voluntary choice, but we forced people to bear the consequences of their bad choices. Oh, you weren't wearing a seat belt and you got in an accident? Sorry, your insurance company will not cover the medical costs due to injuries you suffered that the seat belt would have prevented (or you have a much higher deductible in such a case). Oh, you hit something while backing up and you didn't put a rear view camera in your car? Same sort of answer from your insurance company. Oh, you hit something because you didn't have anti-lock brakes and so you couldn't steer to avoid the collision? Same answer. In other words, if it is in fact true that these various technologies reduce the risk of accidents, then people who know they will have to take the consequences if they cause an accident will use these technologies to reduce that risk. But in our present regime, our society appears to be violently allergic to such things. The very existence of no fault auto insurance, for example, indicates that we don't like the idea of having to take the consequences of bad choices--but the result is that everyone pays more for auto insurance (IIRC, average rates in no fault states are about twice what they are in states that don't have no fault). We would all be better off if we abandoned the idea that government regulation can magically protect people from bad consequences. We would also all be better off if we abandoned the idea that we can somehow magically have a government that only makes good regulations, and accepted the inconvenient truth that government regulations come as a package, which even if it contains some good regulations contains many more bad ones, and all things considered is a net cost to us all, not a net gain. We need to stop depending on the nanny state to protect us and be responsible adults who are capable of judging risks and acting accordingly.

akira2501 3y ago

The majority of people killed in crashes are impaired by alcohol or drugs or both. 1/6 of all fatalities are pedestrians, and another 1/6 are motorcycles, despite only being 1/10 of all registered vehicles. There are tons of modes in this data. Assessing all crash fatalities as some sort of "general" problem you can target misses this fact. The single greatest thing you could do to reduce fatalities is to eliminate drunk and impaired driving.

drivebycomment 3y ago
This comment is irrelevant to the discussion of the AEB, since, AEB doesn't prevent anyone else from working on eliminating drunk and impaired driving. If anything, AEB would help mitigate some of the impact from the drunk and impaired driving.
- akira2501 3y ago
  > This comment is irrelevant to the discussion of the AEB, This discussion is about _mandating_ AEB, not it's mere existence or implementation, and of the overall value of that proposition; which, I am suggesting is low relative to all other problems and efforts spent mandating this would be better spent elsewhere. > If anything, AEB would help mitigate some of the impact from the drunk and impaired driving. Are these systems tested for this use case? I'd like to see that. Otherwise, this is a guess, and a bad one.
asoneth 3y ago
Agreed that eliminating drunk and impaired driving is important. (For example, if there was a well-tested and reliable technology that could reduce drunk and impaired driving, I would be in favor of mandating it in new cars.) But this is not mutually exclusive. For one thing, we can do two things at once. For another, automobile fatalities typically have multiple contributing causes. If we had stronger safety regulations around vehicle height, stopping distance, windshield visibility, etc then some number of the crashes involving alcohol or drug use might have been injuries or close calls instead of fatalities.

eep_social 3y ago

> make cost/benefit tradeoffs that decrease the safety of those around them And yet we see that truck and suv purchases are through the roof with buyers regularly expressing the sentiment that they would rather be in a large vehicle to keep themselves and the other occupants safe. Generally the other side, which is fuck the pedestrians, cyclists, or other drivers who cannot afford to drive a full sized truck to starbucks, is left unsaid.

asoneth 3y ago
> buyers regularly expressing the sentiment that they would rather be in a large vehicle to keep themselves and the other occupants safe Yes. This is precisely why this sort of decision cannot be left to individual consumers -- the end result is an arms race of ever-larger vehicles and dramatic increases in fatalities for the rest of us.