3 ms·

trick question. all three

speedgoose 7mo ago
You don’t like active safety features ? Even if you think you are great and better than most, don’t you think it would be neat that the other drivers you share the roads with have active safety features ? So they don’t crash into you or run over your kids?
- phainopepla2 7mo ago
  I am convinced that some safety features (such as lane assist, for example), actually make roads less safe on net, because they allow or encourage drivers to be less engaged in the act of driving. But then, if it were up to me we'd all be driving manual transmissions.
  - speedgoose 7mo ago
    I see what you mean but some features are great. The ones that stops automatically to not run over cyclists and pedestrians for example. Also why manual transmissions for everyone ? It’s kinda slow and cumbersome. It’s fun to pretend play being a good pilot, but that’s obsolete.
    - phainopepla2 7mo ago
      My main argument for manual transmissions would be that because it requires both hands to be engaged it leaves less availability for the right hand to pick up their phone. The number of people I see holding and staring at their phone while driving down my residential street is shocking. I also think it just connects you to the act of driving more, which I'm convinced (without evidence, just a hunch) makes you a safer driving
      - Kirby64 7mo ago
        People have been distracted while driving manual transmissions for ages too. I remember my father telling me a story of drinking coffee out of a coffee cup, while smoking a cigarette, and driving his manual transmission in a blizzard. How distracted a driver is with phones/etc is up to them; enabling them to be safer within their existing usage is only a benefit. Same reason things like the semi-autonomous driving are a net benefit. They substantially reduce the cognitive load of driving, which makes you more able to monitor the higher level driving tasks. The fatigue is noticeable for me, especially on longer drives.
        phainopepla2 7mo ago
        > People have been distracted while driving manual transmissions for ages too Of course, but it's definitely worse now that people have devices designed to grab attention within arms reach constantly. > How distracted a driver is with phones/etc is up to them And many people choose to be quite distracted. I would love it if they had less ability to make that choice when it comes to endangering other people's lives. In any case, I don't disagree that there are some benefits to semi automated safety features. For some people it's certainly a net benefit. But I think you're underestimating the number of people who use that extra bandwidth to dive into an even deeper distraction hole. The number of people I see scrolling through short form vídeos while going full speed on the highway is shocking
        Kirby64 7mo ago
        > The number of people I see scrolling through short form vídeos while going full speed on the highway is shocking Then what would change? Highway driving in a manual is essentially no different than an auto. The problem is people are choosing to be distracted drivers, not that driving is so easy that they choose distractions as a result.
        phainopepla2 7mo ago
        Let me rephrase my point: 1. Some people choose the maximum amount of distraction they can while still being able to operate their car at a basic (unsafe) level. 2. Manual transmissions allow for less distraction (not zero distraction, of course), because they require more frequent use of both hands, and more engagement of the body in general. 3. Therefore, manual transmissions, if they were widely used, would result in less distracted driving
  - BeetleB 7mo ago
    > I am convinced that some safety features (such as lane assist, for example), actually make roads less safe on net, because they allow or encourage drivers to be less engaged in the act of driving. "Birth control leads to riskier behavior and more pregnancies."
  - 2postsperday 7mo ago
    Even if they do make people safer "on average" these systems are not tested by a lot of the auto-safety organizations. In fact, some of these organizations simply bump up the "safety rating" automatically depending on how many "safety" features are included, without actually testing the effectiveness of the feature. This is important, because forward collusion detection is not a binary thing. Each auto maker has their own set of parameters, sensors and implementations to achieve a similar goal, but each act independently. I would also prefer if people were more engaged with driving too. I don't think we should encourage people to "rely" on these systems to keep them out of trouble as these systems can and do act unpredictably and may harm other road users as a result of a programming decision since the car in front acted unexpectedly. I think the whole automation of everything in a car is a bit silly. Transmissions are whatever for me, although the full lane assist, cruise control, adaptive cruise control, even automatic wipers and headlights makes people feel so much more disconnected from the car, which I think leads to unsafe habits or worse, unable to handle the car in situations where the automatic systems fail or become unreliable (e.g poor visibility, wet roads, unmapped roads, off-road, obstructions on the road, road works, etc).
- orthecreedence 7mo ago
  One time I gently left my lane to slightly move into the (empty) opposing lane as I passed a cyclist who was on a narrow shoulder. The lane assist thankfully corrected my clearly idiotic move by taking the wheel and swerving the car towards the cyclist, who the car probably thought was a terrorist or something. Luckily I fought the "correction" and managed to save myself the inconvenience of cleaning cyclist guts off my windshield at the next gas station.

You don’t like active safety features ? Even if you think you are great and better than most, don’t you think it would be neat that the other drivers you share the roads with have active safety features ? So they don’t crash into you or run over your kids?

phainopepla2 7mo ago
I am convinced that some safety features (such as lane assist, for example), actually make roads less safe on net, because they allow or encourage drivers to be less engaged in the act of driving. But then, if it were up to me we'd all be driving manual transmissions.
- speedgoose 7mo ago
  I see what you mean but some features are great. The ones that stops automatically to not run over cyclists and pedestrians for example. Also why manual transmissions for everyone ? It’s kinda slow and cumbersome. It’s fun to pretend play being a good pilot, but that’s obsolete.
  - phainopepla2 7mo ago
    My main argument for manual transmissions would be that because it requires both hands to be engaged it leaves less availability for the right hand to pick up their phone. The number of people I see holding and staring at their phone while driving down my residential street is shocking. I also think it just connects you to the act of driving more, which I'm convinced (without evidence, just a hunch) makes you a safer driving
    - Kirby64 7mo ago
      People have been distracted while driving manual transmissions for ages too. I remember my father telling me a story of drinking coffee out of a coffee cup, while smoking a cigarette, and driving his manual transmission in a blizzard. How distracted a driver is with phones/etc is up to them; enabling them to be safer within their existing usage is only a benefit. Same reason things like the semi-autonomous driving are a net benefit. They substantially reduce the cognitive load of driving, which makes you more able to monitor the higher level driving tasks. The fatigue is noticeable for me, especially on longer drives.
      - phainopepla2 7mo ago
        > People have been distracted while driving manual transmissions for ages too Of course, but it's definitely worse now that people have devices designed to grab attention within arms reach constantly. > How distracted a driver is with phones/etc is up to them And many people choose to be quite distracted. I would love it if they had less ability to make that choice when it comes to endangering other people's lives. In any case, I don't disagree that there are some benefits to semi automated safety features. For some people it's certainly a net benefit. But I think you're underestimating the number of people who use that extra bandwidth to dive into an even deeper distraction hole. The number of people I see scrolling through short form vídeos while going full speed on the highway is shocking
        Kirby64 7mo ago
        > The number of people I see scrolling through short form vídeos while going full speed on the highway is shocking Then what would change? Highway driving in a manual is essentially no different than an auto. The problem is people are choosing to be distracted drivers, not that driving is so easy that they choose distractions as a result.
        phainopepla2 7mo ago
        Let me rephrase my point: 1. Some people choose the maximum amount of distraction they can while still being able to operate their car at a basic (unsafe) level. 2. Manual transmissions allow for less distraction (not zero distraction, of course), because they require more frequent use of both hands, and more engagement of the body in general. 3. Therefore, manual transmissions, if they were widely used, would result in less distracted driving
- BeetleB 7mo ago
  > I am convinced that some safety features (such as lane assist, for example), actually make roads less safe on net, because they allow or encourage drivers to be less engaged in the act of driving. "Birth control leads to riskier behavior and more pregnancies."
- 2postsperday 7mo ago
  Even if they do make people safer "on average" these systems are not tested by a lot of the auto-safety organizations. In fact, some of these organizations simply bump up the "safety rating" automatically depending on how many "safety" features are included, without actually testing the effectiveness of the feature. This is important, because forward collusion detection is not a binary thing. Each auto maker has their own set of parameters, sensors and implementations to achieve a similar goal, but each act independently. I would also prefer if people were more engaged with driving too. I don't think we should encourage people to "rely" on these systems to keep them out of trouble as these systems can and do act unpredictably and may harm other road users as a result of a programming decision since the car in front acted unexpectedly. I think the whole automation of everything in a car is a bit silly. Transmissions are whatever for me, although the full lane assist, cruise control, adaptive cruise control, even automatic wipers and headlights makes people feel so much more disconnected from the car, which I think leads to unsafe habits or worse, unable to handle the car in situations where the automatic systems fail or become unreliable (e.g poor visibility, wet roads, unmapped roads, off-road, obstructions on the road, road works, etc).
orthecreedence 7mo ago
One time I gently left my lane to slightly move into the (empty) opposing lane as I passed a cyclist who was on a narrow shoulder. The lane assist thankfully corrected my clearly idiotic move by taking the wheel and swerving the car towards the cyclist, who the car probably thought was a terrorist or something. Luckily I fought the "correction" and managed to save myself the inconvenience of cleaning cyclist guts off my windshield at the next gas station.