4 ms·
> Good regulation would only mandate a driver warning Then you must be in favour of this regulation. From the article: > The EU regulations permit a system th
by SECProto 2y ago
> Good regulation would only mandate a driver warning
Then you must be in favour of this regulation. From the article:
> The EU regulations permit a system that can use a cascaded acoustic warning, a cascaded vibrating warning, an accelerator pedal with haptic feedback, or a speed control function in which the speed of the vehicle will be gradually reduced [...] the first two options may not quite compel any actual changes in speed on the part of the vehicle, and that's by design. They will also have to be short in duration not to annoy the driver.
- giantrobot 2y ago> The EU regulations permit The very thing you quoted has reduced control authority as points three and four! They're dangerous inclusions. It should have stopped with the audible warning, the vibrating feedback has the potential to be dangerous but isn't automatically. I'm on board with speed warnings in cars. They're helpful in cars where it's easy to speed. My partner's ICE car has a turbocharger and a very smooth ride. It's way too easy to hit 85mph on the freeway and not really notice. Many EVs have the same problem. I'd actually like a speeding dummy light in that car. What I don't want is reduced control authority because someone not in the car with me and not in my current traffic situation decided I should never be able to go over 75mph ever for any reason.
- SECProto 2y agoOptions 3 and 4 are options - not requirements (hence the "or" between 3 and 4). Manufacturers choose which of the 4 options to implement. If you don't want them, dont buy the cars from manufacturers that do. What you suggest would impose manufacturers who want to do 3 and 4 must also do option 1 or 2, which would make them unreasonable.