4 ms·

AFAIK 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 press

by Lev1a 1y ago

AFAIK 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 ago
That becomes circular logic because ABS is also required by law
- lan321 1y ago
  Eh, 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 ago
    My 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 ago
      Then 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 ago
        That’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.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        Using ABS sensors to justify new regulation is a circular argument if those ABS sensors were installed because of regulation. I was arguing otherwise, that ABS would be installed in a big majority of cars no matter what, and that gives a non-circular argument. Looking up some data, it was about 75% of cars and rising in 2007, so not as high as I expected but still pretty high. There's some circularity but I'd say it's mostly not circular.
        bumby 1y ago
        I posted that they are installed for legal reasons. The other commenter posted that less sensors are required because they piggyback on another system. That other system is also legally required. That is a circular rationale because it’s still pointing to a legally mandated sensor. Nearly all new cars have ABS due to safety mandates.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        > I posted that they are installed for legal reasons. Yes you did. How can I make it clearer that I disagree. > That is a circular rationale because it’s still pointing to a legally mandated sensor. It's circular if the legal mandate is why those sensors are installed. If they'd be installed anyway then it's not circular.
        bumby 1y ago
        You seem to imply that the legal and safety are independent. I am saying they are linked. Ie there wouldn’t be a legal reason if it weren’t for the safety reason. So pointing to the safety is why it’s a circular argument. It’s like disagreeing that smoke detectors are because they are legally required in homes because people want them anyway for safety reasons. Both can be true at the same time because they both are related to the same risk mitigation. In any event, the OP was that some people don’t want those sensors, my point is they aren’t optional.
        1y ago

by Lev1a 1y ago

AFAIK 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 ago

That becomes circular logic because ABS is also required by law

lan321 1y ago
Eh, 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 ago
  My 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 ago
    Then 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 ago
      That’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.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        Using ABS sensors to justify new regulation is a circular argument if those ABS sensors were installed because of regulation. I was arguing otherwise, that ABS would be installed in a big majority of cars no matter what, and that gives a non-circular argument. Looking up some data, it was about 75% of cars and rising in 2007, so not as high as I expected but still pretty high. There's some circularity but I'd say it's mostly not circular.
        bumby 1y ago
        I posted that they are installed for legal reasons. The other commenter posted that less sensors are required because they piggyback on another system. That other system is also legally required. That is a circular rationale because it’s still pointing to a legally mandated sensor. Nearly all new cars have ABS due to safety mandates.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        > I posted that they are installed for legal reasons. Yes you did. How can I make it clearer that I disagree. > That is a circular rationale because it’s still pointing to a legally mandated sensor. It's circular if the legal mandate is why those sensors are installed. If they'd be installed anyway then it's not circular.
        bumby 1y ago
        You seem to imply that the legal and safety are independent. I am saying they are linked. Ie there wouldn’t be a legal reason if it weren’t for the safety reason. So pointing to the safety is why it’s a circular argument. It’s like disagreeing that smoke detectors are because they are legally required in homes because people want them anyway for safety reasons. Both can be true at the same time because they both are related to the same risk mitigation. In any event, the OP was that some people don’t want those sensors, my point is they aren’t optional.
        1y ago