5 ms·

>According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), approximately 188,000 passenger vehicles were backing in crashes reported to the polic

>According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), approximately 188,000 passenger vehicles were backing in crashes reported to the police in the United States during 2015…The combination of Rear Vision Camera and Rear Parking Assist reduced backing crash involvement rates by 42%. When Rear Automatic Braking was added to the Rear Vision Camera and Rear Parking Assist, vehicles with all three systems had backing crash involvement rates that were 78% lower than vehicles with none of the systems.[1] The data would seem to contradict that statement. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437518303451 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...

RoseRose 3y ago
I think "Rear Parking Assist" would be better phrased as "Rear Proximity Sensors", as the "Automatic Parking Assist" (which is what I thought we were discussing) only brings a (likely statistically insignificant) marginal risk reduction of 2% and seems to fall under the "bullshit convenience" category. I do agree that the proximity sensors are themselves huge wins but (if I'm understanding correctly) this could be fairly trivially conveyed on the dashboard instead of the infotainment system. As I see it, the issue here is that it's in automakers interest to tie together the safety improvements (which are great and benefit people) with the cost-reduction mechanisms consolidating controls and monitors into a single screen which seem to conflate operation with infotainment and, I would argue, reduce peoples' safety. This is only tangentially related but different to the repair question, so I modified what I said a bit to reflect I was going off topic.
forgetfreeman 3y ago
You misunderstood my intent, I'm saying that introducing these systems apparently produces a infosec threat significant enough to warrant federal legislation. In response to your post however I think we can dispense with the notion that folks backing into parked cars, light posts, etc, represents anything more than a nuisance to whoever owned the property that got backed into. Yeah it says "crash" in the writeup but we're not talking Michael Bay style 8 lanes of exploding cars here.
- 542354234235 3y ago
  I don’t think it needs to be some Michael Bay crash to be significant. Let’s say that all these crashes are minor, as you state. If repairs ranged from $500 to $1,500 evenly, that is about $188 million in property damage a year. That’s not nothing. I agree that systems need to be better designed with infosec in mind.
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    It's not nothing, it's the consequences of people's general disinterest in operating a motor vehicle effectively. I think it -should- be expensive to be a bad driver. Good decision making is learned through poor decision making.
    - 542354234235 3y ago
      > I think it -should- be expensive to be a bad driver. Good decision making is learned through poor decision making. You want less safety in order to teach some sort of moral lesson to people? Thank god we don't design planes that way, I guess.
    - forgetfreeman 3y ago
      Removing incentives to actually pay attention to where your two ton death machine is in space isn't how one introduces safety. What you're proposing is a crutch that rewards inattentive behavior. There's no moral to it.
      - 542354234235 3y ago
        A camera and sensors that give you more information about "where your two ton death machine is in space" and are literally proven to improve safety and reduce accidents means you pay attention less? So cars would be even better if we removed the side and rear view mirrors, since those are nothing but "a crutch that rewards inattentive behavior"? I mean, people have necks so shouldn't they just turn around and look instead of being lazy and relying on mirrors? I'm sorry, but I cannot take your position seriously.

RoseRose 3y ago

I think "Rear Parking Assist" would be better phrased as "Rear Proximity Sensors", as the "Automatic Parking Assist" (which is what I thought we were discussing) only brings a (likely statistically insignificant) marginal risk reduction of 2% and seems to fall under the "bullshit convenience" category. I do agree that the proximity sensors are themselves huge wins but (if I'm understanding correctly) this could be fairly trivially conveyed on the dashboard instead of the infotainment system. As I see it, the issue here is that it's in automakers interest to tie together the safety improvements (which are great and benefit people) with the cost-reduction mechanisms consolidating controls and monitors into a single screen which seem to conflate operation with infotainment and, I would argue, reduce peoples' safety. This is only tangentially related but different to the repair question, so I modified what I said a bit to reflect I was going off topic.

forgetfreeman 3y ago

You misunderstood my intent, I'm saying that introducing these systems apparently produces a infosec threat significant enough to warrant federal legislation. In response to your post however I think we can dispense with the notion that folks backing into parked cars, light posts, etc, represents anything more than a nuisance to whoever owned the property that got backed into. Yeah it says "crash" in the writeup but we're not talking Michael Bay style 8 lanes of exploding cars here.

542354234235 3y ago
I don’t think it needs to be some Michael Bay crash to be significant. Let’s say that all these crashes are minor, as you state. If repairs ranged from $500 to $1,500 evenly, that is about $188 million in property damage a year. That’s not nothing. I agree that systems need to be better designed with infosec in mind.
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  It's not nothing, it's the consequences of people's general disinterest in operating a motor vehicle effectively. I think it -should- be expensive to be a bad driver. Good decision making is learned through poor decision making.
  - 542354234235 3y ago
    > I think it -should- be expensive to be a bad driver. Good decision making is learned through poor decision making. You want less safety in order to teach some sort of moral lesson to people? Thank god we don't design planes that way, I guess.
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    Removing incentives to actually pay attention to where your two ton death machine is in space isn't how one introduces safety. What you're proposing is a crutch that rewards inattentive behavior. There's no moral to it.
    - 542354234235 3y ago
      A camera and sensors that give you more information about "where your two ton death machine is in space" and are literally proven to improve safety and reduce accidents means you pay attention less? So cars would be even better if we removed the side and rear view mirrors, since those are nothing but "a crutch that rewards inattentive behavior"? I mean, people have necks so shouldn't they just turn around and look instead of being lazy and relying on mirrors? I'm sorry, but I cannot take your position seriously.