3 ms·

You misunderstood my intent, I'm saying that introducing these systems apparently produces a infosec threat significant enough to warrant federal legislation. I

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.
      - forgetfreeman 3y ago
        Here's the thing: watching a monitor doesn't actually update one's spacial model of their surroundings and their vehicle's position therein. Under normal operating conditions an attentive driver has and is constantly updating a fairly accurate mental model of their vehicle and the objects near it that they are likely to interact with. When your attention is drawn to a rear camera system you've now ditched that spacial model entirely and have changed to modeling the video game on the screen in front of you. This context switch is -very- expensive to unwind and at least momentarily costs you your awareness of where everything else except the back bumper is in space, and what's in front or to either side of the vehicle. As far as mirrors go, they aren't to be relied on solely as they do not provide a full picture of the vehicle's surrounds. Checking one's blind spots by turning your head and actually -looking- in your blind spot before merging is a thing. same goes with the rearview. Hope that clears up your confusion.
alistairSH 3y ago
Some portion of those incidents were backing over pedestrians and children, not just backing into stationary objects.
chollida1 3y ago
We know someone who backed over their child and the child died. I assure you, that was not a nuisance.
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  I know three guys that got hit by lightning. I still don't consider wild-ass outliers when making decisions.
  - chollida1 3y ago
    Luckily for you, you don’t need to. Consider outliers. The reason they the US mandated backup cameras was due to accidents like this. They were that common. from your original point. > 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. Given the complete lack of any empathy at all you've shown, I don't expect you to change your mind on this, but please try to consider if we have a way to prevent deaths, then maybe we should try and not just consider a parent backing over their child to "represents anything more than a nuisance to whoever owned the property that got backed into."
    - forgetfreeman 3y ago
      We're getting pretty far afield from the original point of decoupling control systems from network connected infotainment systems, which doesn't necessarily eliminate backup sensors or cameras. The current everything-in-one-bucket implementation is a matter of convenience and cost savings for the manufacturers, not a hard technical requirement. I could go on at length about the consequences of trying to play whack-a-mole with human stupidity and how that just breeds stronger idiots. There have been no significant changes to vehicle-related death statistics since the 90s when airbags were mandated, despite significant improvements to crash protection and countless here-let-me-help-you-with-that safety features that have been introduced in the last 30 years. So what do you call it when improving safety doesn't actually improve safety?

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.
    - forgetfreeman 3y ago
      Here's the thing: watching a monitor doesn't actually update one's spacial model of their surroundings and their vehicle's position therein. Under normal operating conditions an attentive driver has and is constantly updating a fairly accurate mental model of their vehicle and the objects near it that they are likely to interact with. When your attention is drawn to a rear camera system you've now ditched that spacial model entirely and have changed to modeling the video game on the screen in front of you. This context switch is -very- expensive to unwind and at least momentarily costs you your awareness of where everything else except the back bumper is in space, and what's in front or to either side of the vehicle. As far as mirrors go, they aren't to be relied on solely as they do not provide a full picture of the vehicle's surrounds. Checking one's blind spots by turning your head and actually -looking- in your blind spot before merging is a thing. same goes with the rearview. Hope that clears up your confusion.

alistairSH 3y ago

Some portion of those incidents were backing over pedestrians and children, not just backing into stationary objects.

chollida1 3y ago

We know someone who backed over their child and the child died. I assure you, that was not a nuisance.

forgetfreeman 3y ago
I know three guys that got hit by lightning. I still don't consider wild-ass outliers when making decisions.
- chollida1 3y ago
  Luckily for you, you don’t need to. Consider outliers. The reason they the US mandated backup cameras was due to accidents like this. They were that common. from your original point. > 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. Given the complete lack of any empathy at all you've shown, I don't expect you to change your mind on this, but please try to consider if we have a way to prevent deaths, then maybe we should try and not just consider a parent backing over their child to "represents anything more than a nuisance to whoever owned the property that got backed into."
  - forgetfreeman 3y ago
    We're getting pretty far afield from the original point of decoupling control systems from network connected infotainment systems, which doesn't necessarily eliminate backup sensors or cameras. The current everything-in-one-bucket implementation is a matter of convenience and cost savings for the manufacturers, not a hard technical requirement. I could go on at length about the consequences of trying to play whack-a-mole with human stupidity and how that just breeds stronger idiots. There have been no significant changes to vehicle-related death statistics since the 90s when airbags were mandated, despite significant improvements to crash protection and countless here-let-me-help-you-with-that safety features that have been introduced in the last 30 years. So what do you call it when improving safety doesn't actually improve safety?