7 ms·
Some of those “useless” sensors like tire pressure or backup camera are required by law. Even if you get a bare bones hatchback (manual transmission, manual loc
by bumby 1y ago
Some of those “useless” sensors like tire pressure or backup camera are required by law. Even if you get a bare bones hatchback (manual transmission, manual locks, manual windows etc.) they’ll be forced to include those.
- ekianjo 1y agoRegulations will make cars unaffordable which is exactly what they are pushing for
- threetonesun 1y agoTire sensors and backup cameras are dirt cheap though. Maybe lane warning and collision avoidance are a bit more but they’re both 10+ year old technology, they can’t cost that much. Also all of these things are good. Redoing the steering wheel or using 22” wheels or adding heating for each individual ass cheek… that I don’t need, and it adds to the cost.
- dgfitz 1y agoYou can't replace a tire sensor without getting it coded. Complete bullshit.
- threetonesun 1y agoI agree this is bullshit, although when I swapped from Summer to Winter tires I fixed this by putting tape over the sensor light in the Winter.
- kube-system 1y agoA car on a busy highway needs to know which sensors belong to itself. Some cars are a PITA to program, but many can be done with cheap tools.
- dgfitz 1y agoEither you can see the tire is low visually, or when you hear a thump-thump-thump you know you blew a tire. I do not agree with your point. I do understand it, don't agree.
- bumby 1y agoTPMS essentially automates people checking their tires because the reality is most people do not do a walk around on their car before driving. In theory, we could use a dipstick in our fuel tank but most of us prefer an automated gage.
- kube-system 1y agoEven if you do a walk around, under-inflated tires are typically not distinguishable from normally inflated tires. Especially on today's cars with shorter and stiffer sidewalls. I had a rental Mercedes with a leak in a tire recently... a tire was at something like 15psi but looked visually the same as the other tires. I absolutely do a walk around on all of my rentals and take pictures, but I would have had no clue if it weren't for TPMS. I would have driven it until it failed.
- dgfitz 1y agoIt had already failed. You had run-flats on the car. They’re still visually apparent.
- dghlsakjg 1y agoTires can have low enough pressure to affect vehicle handling without being visually low, you simply cannot measure tire pressure visually. That's why even tire shop workers use a gauge instead of eyeballing it.
- Dylan16807 1y ago> A car on a busy highway needs to know which sensors belong to itself. A sensor you were paired to disappears. Now a new sensor is showing up, and it sticks with you for an entire hour. Sounds pretty easy for a computer to figure that puzzle out.
- Loudergood 1y agoThe tool is like $10.
- vkou 1y agoThe tool is $10, the two minute walkaround of undoing your pressure caps, measuring the pressure, and redoing them, every trip, adds ~1000 minutes/year. ... Or you could just have the manufacturer spend $30 to embed this into the car's dash. For similar reasons, your car also comes with a fuel gauge, and doesn't require hand-cranking to start. If you really want car prices to come down, have the manufacturers fire most of their workers and replace them with robots (I'm not sure if the robots will make for a good consumer base, but that's someone else' problem.) Look at a BYD car factory versus any one ran by the American auto dinosaurs, and that's where you'll find the price delta.
- BanterTrouble 1y agoAnything that takes control away from me I am not interested in. I am both legally and financially liable for anything the car does. I am also not trusting my life to some poorly maintained software written by someone in another country.
- LUmBULtERA 1y agoBeing legally and financially liable doesn't bring back the kid you ran over because you couldn't see them with your mirrors or turning your head...
- BanterTrouble 1y agoMandating driving aids (that often don't work properly) won't fix this problem either. What does increase safety is better driver training. This has be ubiquitously proven BTW.
- LUmBULtERA 1y agoYou've had backup cameras often fail? You must be very unlucky. After many years of driving and riding in cars with backup cameras, I have never seen one not work, let alone "often" not work. Where is the ubiquitously proven support for the assertion that backup cameras don't increase safety?
- BanterTrouble 1y agoDeliberately re-framing an argument to force me to accept a conclusion, while misinterpreting what I said is disingenuous. I've read several of your replies towards me and I can tell that you either unable or unwilling see my point of view. So there is no point in having a discussion with you.
- Dylan16807 1y agoIf you want to use "often don't work properly" as an argument, then people are allowed to challenge that argument. I guess they shouldn't have assumed you were speaking from experience, but I don't think that's a big deal. That's not forcing you to accept any conclusion. If it happens "often" you should have examples and/or data. If you don't then maybe you should reconsider if it actually is "often". And they directly asked for data that it doesn't increase safety. That's not unwillingness to see your point of view. If you provide quality evidence, you can win them over.
- Schiendelman 1y agoYeah! Let's get rid of requirements for headlights and seatbelts, and brake lights, too. Why do we need all that? /s
- dagw 1y agoIf those things are so important to people, they'll happily pay extra for them. Let the market decide! /s
- kbelder 1y agoYes, but without the sarcasm.
- bumby 1y agoBut what do we do about externalities, like when the value is for other people? I don’t get much value out of my turn signals, but I assume other drivers do… Oh, wait. That’s what regulators are for :-)
- ekianjo 1y ago> Oh, wait. That’s what regulators are for :-) Do you blindly assume that regulators are right 100% of the time? If they aren't , then by virtue of regulation being never removed in the long run, you will end up with inflated regulation for which some of it is done for no good reason.
- Schiendelman 1y agoThis is absolutely true. This is how housing prices have gotten so bad in the United States, through incredibly insane zoning and all the other land use regulation around it. Is there a particular regulation you would prefer to remove? If you list something specific, let's talk about other alternatives to removing the regulation that could cause better outcomes without reducing supply in that market.
- 1y ago
- tomrod 1y agoThis is an old and tired argument. There is no secret cabal at the wheel trying to make cars unaffordable for the purposes of social control. There is an old and tired cabal of manufacturers wanting to generate a moat and push prices up high.
- BanterTrouble 1y agoNobody says it is a secret cabal. It is very frustrating when people misstate other people's beliefs There are politicians and activists that have been pushing for lower car ownership and they do it openly. Motivations for this vary. > There is an old and tired cabal of manufacturers wanting to generate a moat and push prices up high. Two things can be true at once.
- idiotsecant 1y agoYou are making the serious suggestion that a significant portion of the average cars cost is artificial in order to make people not buy them? And the extremely powerful automotive lobby is just fine with this?
- BanterTrouble 1y agoI live in the UK. It isn't unheard of that business will collude with government to "pull the ladder up behind them". I've worked in companies where that has been their stated strategy.
- Dylan16807 1y agoPulling up the ladder behind you means cutting off competition. Not cutting off your own production.
- amy214 1y agoif i am a hardcore environmentalist, i throw regulations at cars to make prices eye wateringly high. car makers are aligned due to ensuing profit if i am a hardcore environmentalist, i throw regulations at homebuilding to make housebuilding excruciating. homeowner voters are thrilled by the ensuing valuations see: california
- knowaveragejoe 1y agoWho is they? Why would they "push for" that?
- piuantiderp 1y agoOwners of car companies, to make more money. More disposable, more expensive cars, in less easily entered industry. How else will they keep BYD and others from coming in?
- vkou 1y agoThe average age of a car on the American roads has been increasing every year. How does this square with your theory that cars are becoming 'more disposable'? They seem to be running longer than ever before.
- bumby 1y agoTo play devils advocate, “disposable” doesn’t necessarily mean “unreliable”. It just means that it’s harder to fix once it does break.
- vkou 1y agoThe average age of an American car is, at the moment, 14 years[1]. That means that there are about as many 28+ year old cars on the road as there are new cars. Repairability becomes somewhat less relevant when reliability is better out-of-the-box. [1] A decade ago it was 11 years.
- bumby 1y agoNot to be too nit picky, but I think you’re conflating median and average. The median age is probably lower because the age distribution skews older due to vintage cars and such. But you are right about cars lasting much longer today. At the same time, I think there is a point that they are also less repairable. (I’ve heard horror stories of $7k+ touch screen replacements, which control everything from the radio to the HVAC).
- Lev1a 1y agoAFAIK some automakers also cut down on the number of sensors by doing stuff like reading the already implemented sensor(s) for the ABS to provide the tire pressure warning function.
- bumby 1y agoThat becomes circular logic because ABS is also required by law
- lan321 1y agoEh, you really don't want a car without ABS, though. For motorcycles, I kinda get it since you can't do some stunts with ABS, but on a car, it has zero benefit nowadays. Mandatory ABS, seatbelts and airbags would be the big things for me, followed by sexy, modern ESP, TC for powerful RWD cars and collision warning beeper (no autobrake at high speed, that shit's deadly and I hate that it can't be permanently disabled separate to the beeper).
- bumby 1y agoMy point is that the features are there because a regulatory body has made it a requirement. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad requirement.
- Dylan16807 1y agoThen I think your point is wrong for ABS. Yes it's required but in almost all cases I bet it's not there because it's required.
- bumby 1y agoThat’s the circular part. It’s required because it’s a safety issue. I think that’s the intent behind almost all mandatory sensors. That’s why the post put “useless” in quotes. I’m highlighting just that it may be required because it’s needed for safety. However, many motorcycles have ABS as optional equipment and many people (non-stunters) don’t opt in for it. Meaning, many people don’t recognize (or don’t care enough to pay) the safety aspect.
- toxik 1y agoThey are required by law in no small part because car manufacturers want it to be. Compliance is a moat.
- bumby 1y agoI’m sure that factors in, but let’s not pretend that safety is also major contributor
- __s 1y agoRearview cameras are effective: https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/bibliography/ref/2130 https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/bibliography/ref/2130 I agree with having simpler SKUs, but rearview camera is not where to start
- potato3732842 1y agoThe problem isn't that they're effective. It's that they're a regulatory solution to the complaints that the same demographics had 20yr ago (it's too easy to back a big fashionable in the 00s SUV over a kid) and as a result of it now all cars have crap rear visibility because there's no reason to be good when you have the camera.
- danans 1y agoThe primary factor that correlates with reverse cameras reducing backup accidents is age - people over 70 have higher backup accidents rates without cameras/sensors. FTA: > When averaged between the 2 automakers, effects were significantly larger for drivers 70 and older (38% reduction) than for drivers younger than 70 (1% increase); effects were significant for older but not younger drivers. A big SUV is probably an exacerbating factor, though. Also, for any kind of car, rear cameras and sensors decrease impacts while parallel parking. I see far fewer damaged bumpers on newer cars these days.
- dghlsakjg 1y agoVisibility has gotten worse in many vehicles as a crash safety thing. Rear visibility is so blocked because the "beltline" of cars has moved up as crash standards get more stringent. A car that has a small rear window and high 'beltline' will do better in a crash.
- BanterTrouble 1y agoThe tyre pressure sensor you can make an argument to be required by law as uneven tyre pressures can negatively effect handling. However the backup camera being required by law is absolutely ridiculous. You can just either use the mirrors or turn your head.
- ceejayoz 1y ago> You can just either use the mirrors or turn your head. I can see quite a lot in my backup cam that is in a visual blind spot in both of my cars.
- LUmBULtERA 1y agoI'm pretty sure backup cameras are required because they reduced children being run over and killed... You can't see a small kid behind your car with by just mirrors or turning your head.
- SoftTalker 1y agoMany cars and especially SUVs and trucks are tall enough in front that you could not see a small child right in front of the vehicle. Wide A-pillars also create blind spots that can hide pedestrians and bicycles. Where are the calls for forward- and side- facing cameras to eliminate this claimed risk?
- vkou 1y agoAnyone who has ever driven a car will note that they have ~200 degree peripheral vision to observe things moving in front of you, while the limited FOV of your mirrors does not provide that for what's behind you. Unless you really struggle with object permanence, a child somehow ending up in front of you without you seeing them is not a frequent occurrence, compared to one ending up behind you. But yes, American cars are stupid big and should be smaller.
- kimbernator 1y agoFrom what I'm seeing after some basic googling, there is a fairly pronounced effect in terms of collision rates when people have backup cameras. And a small screen hooked up to a camera is pretty benign in terms of complexity. If the US weren't so obsessed with enormous cars with terrible visibility, I think this would be a different conversation.
- Der_Einzige 1y agoHonestly, good! I am so tired of these insane "I want nothing but an engine" spiritual boomers. They are making the road far more dangerous for everyone. Yes, I will force you to have automatic emergency breaking in your Model T hotrod. Yes, you will be mad. Yes, the road will be a lot safer. No I don't care about your boomer rage about technology. No you don't want to live with India tier road laws/standards - even if - and especially if - you think you do!
- jollyllama 1y ago> Yes, I will force you to have automatic emergency breaking in your Model T hotrod. Fantasy cope, you can't even force emissions testing in most counties.
- dzhiurgis 1y agoUS is bizarre here. You lead in car safety features yet mostly ignore yearly car checks.
- slackfan 1y agoWhat a bigot.
- alephnerd 1y ago+1. Even consumers voted with their pocketbooks in favor of this towards the end given the failure of the Nissa Versa and the Toyota Yaris in the American and Canadian market. Also, there's a reason those $15K Toyotas, Suzukis, and Mitsubishis are sold in Thailand and India, and not in Japan - they don't even meet safety standards in their home country (and it's Toyota, Suzuki, and Mitsubishi that essentially sets standards for all of Japan). Automotive companies like Toyota create different platforms based on the kind of market. All emerging markets use the IMV [0] platform except China, which has it's own separate platform because of China's JV and ToT requirement. Ofc, HN skews towards gearheads and people who seem to have been born in the 1960s-80s, so it won't have great reception. [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_IMV_platform https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_IMV_platform
- 1y ago
- singleshot_ 1y agoRelevant search terms include “body-in-white”